Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Madam Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Josephine Richardson, Member for Barking, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss that we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Middle East

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent developments in the middle east.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Since I visited the region at the beginning of the year, negotiations between Israel and the PLO have continued and some progress has been made towards an agreement on Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho. President Clinton and President Assad met on 16 January, and I hope that this will give new impetus to the negotiations on the Syrian and other tracks. It may take some time yet, but I am clear that there is a determination now on all sides to work for, and to achieve, a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

Mr. Clappison: Given the encouraging signs of progress in the latest negotiations and the need to underpin the peace process with growth and prosperity, would not now be a good time to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade in the region, beginning with the wholly unjustified Arab boycott of Israel, the scrapping of which is long overdue?

Mr. Hurd: The Arab boycott of Israel is gradually fading and eroding, as recent actions and words in the Gulf have shown. In terms of our own affairs, the rapidly increasing total of our exports to Israel tell their own story. They were up 50 per cent. in the first 11 months of last year.

Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Arab League is due to meet in March to decide on the removal of a number of companies from the boycott list on the basis that they will be doing business in Gaza and Jericho? Will the right hon. Gentleman please ensure that Britain will do everything that it can to ensure that all British companies are removed from that list forthwith?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that any justification for the boycott that there ever may have been—we never accepted that there was one —has now gone. The boycott is eroding fast and we shall do our best to help that process.

Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the years the Palestinians have, on occasion, experienced humiliation when crossing into the occupied territories from Jordan and vice versa? Therefore, does he further agree that, under any arrangement, the Palestinians should have the right to control access to the Jericho territory?

Mr. Hurd: That is one of the points, perhaps the most difficult, that is still being thrashed out and it was argued between Mr. Arafat and Mr. Shimon Peres in Davos a few days ago. The Israelis feel—one must have some sympathy for them—that it is a matter of security for them to be able to exercise some control over people coming into Gaza and Jericho, given that once they are in there, they can go freely into Israel. However, the Palestinians are also sensitive about those areas, and they will feel a sense of indignity if they do not have control of the process. It is a matter of working out in detail procedures that are a compromise between those two views. I think that that end is in sight.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State agree that peace in the middle east depends to a large extent on encouragement by western leaders? Has Mr. Clinton not sent the wrong signal across the world from the United States by pandering to a terrorist leader such as Gerry Adams?

Mr. Hurd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. Without following him too far, let me say that I had occasion yesterday, both in public and in private, to express my views on that. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that the test is whether the leader of Sinn Fein is now prepared, at last, to bring violence to a permanent end. He is a failed politician; he is no longer elected as a Member of the House and Sinn Fein has a limited share, as a minority of the minority vote in Northern Ireland. It would be quite wrong if he were given some special treatment simply because he has used the bomb and the bullet to disguise the fact that electorally he has not been successful.

Mr. Dykes: Rather than letting the Arab boycott fade away, is it not time for the United States and the European Union countries to make a major effort to reward Israeli imagination and courage—and Palestinian courage, as trade will also benefit the Palestinians—by dismantling the boycott and suggesting that to the Arab League as soon as possible?

Mr. Hurd: We have done that. However, Israel has some way to go before there is a full and comprehensive peace. Israel still occupies Gaza and Jericho, using methods which certainly do not help forward reconciliation. I agree that the time for the boycott is over and that we must work to bring about its disappearance, but I should not like it to be thought that no effort is required on the other side of the ledger, because it certainly is.

Dr. John Cunningham: Everyone should welcome the meeting between President Clinton and President Assad, and every sensible person wants an end to the Arab boycott, but surely that can come only when the peace


process has been fully completed and there is mutual recognition between all the parties to the dispute. As we can proceed with economic reconstruction while the political dialogue is taking place, can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he has been able to make a positive response to the points that I put to him in December in support of the proposals that he has now received from the Palestinian Council for Economic Reconstruction and Development?

Mr. Hurd: We have given a positive response to the needs of the Palestinians. When I was in Gaza on 5 January, I announced that our aid programme to the occupied territories would amount to £70 million over the next three years. Most of it goes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and I was impressed by what it is doing in Gaza. A good share also goes to health, education and training.

Eastern Europe (Embassies)

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which newly formed states in eastern Europe he proposes to set up embassies; and what is the budget for this in the next financial year.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We have no plans at present to open further missions in the region, but this is kept under review. Since the end of the cold war, the Foreign Office has opened 13 new embassies in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe as well as a consultate-general in St. Petersburg. The cost in the next financial year is expected to be about £9·5 million.

Mrs. Gorman: Given the volatile and possibly ephemeral nature of many of the newly emerging states from the former Soviet Union, should not we be using public facilities such as hotels for mounting our diplomatic mission or sharing with our European partners? Is he aware that in Kiev, which I recently visited, we have acquired two large and elaborate buildings, one of which is being equipped to the standards to which I suppose the diplomatic staff are accustomed? When I inquired what the other building was for, I was told that it was to be done up so that, should the Secretary of State pass through, he would have somewhere to stay because he could not possibly use the hotels in Kiev.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is obviously right to urge on the Foreign Office the need to be as cost effective as possible. On the matter of sharing with our European partners, I had not expected that question from my hon. Friend, but the answer is that we do co-locate, for example both in Minsk and Almaty. Neither had I expected my hon. Friend's suggestion about using hotels, but we do use them, for example in Baku. In Kiev, there are two buildings in Desyatinna street, one is No. 9 and the other is No. 12. We acquired No. 12 because No. 9 is held on a very short lease. We shall certainly make the most cost-effective use of No. 12, including co-location with other European countries, if that is what we want, but we shall give serious attention to as and when, depending upon the needs of other posts in the region.

Mr. Rogers: But, seriously, substantial issues are involved. When the Government are thinking of opening

diplomatic missions, will they consider changing their diplomatic missions staffing policy? In the past year they have been getting rid of the specialists in trade, industry and technology who were helping to develop our contacts in those countries and replacing them with public relations staff. Why do the Government not encourage British industry to invest in eastern Europe?

Mr. Hogg: You will not be surprised to hear, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. We have placed enormous emphasis on the commercial policies of the Foreign Office. One reason for opening diplomatic missions in Almaty, Tashkent and Baku was the commercial opportunities there, and we shall continue to use every method at our disposal to promote British industry in those countries and elsewhere.

European Community (Enlargement)

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards the enlargement of the European Community.

Mr. Hurd: The accession negotiations with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden are going well. Some difficult issues remain, including agriculture and regional policy, but we are committed to the target of March 1994 for completing negotiations.

Mrs. Lait: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) about the volatility of the states in the old Soviet empire, does my right hon. Friend agree that the sooner the applicants for European Union membership from central Europe join, the better for democracy? Does my right hon. Friend believe that Poland, Hungary and the Czech republics should join before they are economically ready to do so?

Mr. Hurd: It would not be sensible to encourage countries in central and eastern Europe to join before they are economically ready to do so, as that would lead to tears, but there are plenty of things that we can do meanwhile. For example, Britain and Italy have launched a joint initiative to associate those countries with the work of the European Union on the two pillars of security and foreign policy and home affairs. Even more important than that is the need to liberalise trade with them. We are pressing hard and there has been some progress. Imports into the European Union from the Visegrad countries, Poland, Hungary, the Czechs and Slovaks, rose by 44 per cent. between 1990 and 1992, but there are still too many restrictions and there is scope for more liberalisation of our market towards the east even before those countries achieve full membership.

Mr. Jim Marshall: In the light of the Foreign Secretary's reply to the specific point about eastern Europe, as the Western European Union is the defence component of the European Union and the European pillar of NATO, will he give a guarantee that, specifically in the case of the Visegrad countries, the Soviet Union will not be able to exercise a veto over their entry into the European Union as it appears to be doing over their entry into NATO?

Mr. Hurd: There is no Russsian veto in either case.

Subsidiarity

Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Council of Ministers last discussed subsidiarity; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: The Council last discussed subsidiarity on 6 December last year, in preparation for the Brussels summit. The Commission presented a subsidiarity report to the Council which would affect some 25 per cent. of EC legislation. Some laws will be repealed completely, others replaced by simpler measures. The Commission's report also agreed with 17 of the 24 items on the Anglo-French subsidiarity list, including the bathing and drinking, water directives and directives regulating professional qualifications. The European Council called for the Commission to bring forward early proposals for the implementation of the report and for swift action. We welcome that.

Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of subsidiarity must be pursued with utmost vigour, to ensure that all European Governments are committed to devolving decision making to national level wherever appropriate? Is that not in contrast to the policy of the Opposition, who appear to be committed to ensuring that decision making is passed to European institutions?

Mr. Hurd: I agree. We shall hear more on that theme in the coming months from all my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is plenty of work still to be done, but it is interesting that the number of Commission proposals for new legislation has dropped rapidly, from more than 140 in 1991 to about 70 last year—that is, it halved.

Mr. Shore: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor after that Brussels summit, to the effect that subsidiarity was to be applied to the expensive directives on bathing water and water quality? Is he aware that since then, a Member of the European Parliament—Mr. Collins—has corresponded with the Chairman of the Commission, and that Mr. Delors stated emphatically that there is no such agreement about the bathing water and water quality directives. Who is right?

Mr. Hurd: It may be that the right hon. Gentleman and others are confused. After the report, the Commission undertook to bring forward proposals to revise existing directives on drinking water, bathing water, surface water quality, fresh water management and ground water. It did not refer to the urban waste water directive, and I do not believe that anyone has claimed that there are plans to replace that. There may be understandable confusion between those different measures in the correspondence to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, much as we may wish a continuing decrease in the intrusiveness of the Commission's decisions in terms of regulations, on occasions—for example, when it opposes protectionism and favours competition—it acts in this country's interests? Is the key not to attack the Commission but to ensure that its competencies are clearly defined, and to keep it out of the hands, and free of the influence, of socialists in the European Parliament?

Mr. Hurd: Exactly—my hon. Friend puts it well. Much Community legislation is the result of pressure from

British firms in respect of the single market and from British groups concerned with the environment. That is why subsidiarity is not entirely a straightforward concept. We must continue to winnow it out and to encourage the Commission to dispense with the unnecessary, but with a will to go further down the road that has been started. That will be an issue in the next few months and in the elections.

Committee of the Regions

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a date has yet been set for the inaugural meeting of the European Committee of the Regions.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): No firm date has been agreed for the inaugural meeting of the European Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Jones: I am sure that the Minister is aware how important it is that the representations chosen to serve on that Committee know at an early date when it is likely to meet. That is important in the context of the whole Maastricht treaty. Does the Minister acknowledge that many representations from other European Union member states will be regarded as regional representatives, while those representing the constituent nations of the United Kingdom will be regarded as local representatives? There is always the danger that local authority representatives will not have the same powers, status or authority as those representing regions and regional bodies in Europe. Can the Minister give an assurance that when the Committee is established, United Kingdom representatives will not be regarded as second-class members?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I believe that a provisional date in early March has been set for the first meeting of the Committee. I assure the hon. Gentleman that United Kingdom representatives will have exactly the same powers, responsibilities and duties as any other members of the Committee, as prescribed in the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend estimate the cost of the Committee's first year of operation, if it ever does start work? Have estimates been made of the potential cost of translating such regional languages as Welsh, Breton and Basque?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To make the Committee of the Regions as cost effective as possible, we are encouraging it to share various facilities, including translation facilities, with the Economic and Social Committee. The figure that has already been budgeted for the Committee of the Regions in 1994 is 12 million ecu.

Sir Russell Johnston: As the Government operate the United Kingdom in a pretty centralised way and are entirely opposed to any domestic devolution, how will they respond if the Committee of the Regions advocates greater powers for regions within Europe?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The powers within the United Kingdom and their distribution is a matter for the House. It would be a denial of the subsidiarity principle, which we discussed in answer to an earlier question, if the European institutions were to try to interfere in the domestic arrangements of member states in that regard.

Ms Quin: I hope that, on reflection, the Government will congratulate the Opposition on our victory in the House during the Maastricht debate, when we ensured that the representatives on the Committee would be elected local councillors. However, is not it regrettable that the Government have failed to follow the advice of the local authority associations on the political balance of representation to the Committee of the Regions from this country, and that the balance does not reflect the strength of the opposition at local level in Scotland, Wales or England? Will the Government now renounce their shabby deals with the nationalist parties and allow the Committee of the Regions to reflect accurately the political balance at local level?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry that the hon. Lady is still squabbling with other members of the Opposition about the composition of the Committee. I can assure the House that the party balance on the Committee is entirely fair and represents the party balance at local authority level. After the next local government elections, no doubt the balance will change back in our favour. I look forward to the next Committee of the Regions having more Conservatives on it.

Growth, Competitiveness and Employment

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with his European counterparts about implementation of the proposals in the Delors White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: A progamme of action was agreed at the European Council on 11 December of last year. A discussion on progress is on the agenda for the Foreign Affairs Council on 7 and 8 February, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will attend.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful for that reply, but will the Minister explain why, against the background of the Conservative party's views on the Delors proposals, a company within a country where those proposals are well advanced can raise enough money to bid for the Rover Group? Does his Department agree with the President of the Board of Trade, who said in 1987 that if the Government did not keep some control over those matters, the British motor industry would be up a cul-de-sac?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment has nothing to say about the bid for Rover. That we are a magnet for overseas investment demonstrates the competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy. I look forward to BMW making an even greater success of the Rover Group.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that Mr. Delors' package, far from creating more employment would create more unemployment, far from creating faster economic growth would restrain the rate of economic growth and far from improving the Community's competitiveness would make us less competitive? Does he further agree that one has only to look at Spain, where the policies espoused by Mr. Delors have been pursued, to see the disastrous consequences that they would have?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The White Paper, which is being pursued and turned into an action plan, has been

agreed by all member states of the European Council. It turns its attention to the European economy and excessive cost and regulation. One of the agreements coming out of the plan is that, where Community legislation inhibits employment through over-regulation or excessive cost, it will now be dealt with.

Mr. Salmond: Will not the Delors proposals on growth and employment be completely frustrated if European markets are not open? Has the Minister any information about today's action in Roscoff against fish products from Scotland, and is he aware of the threat of a total blockade against such products in the French market after this Friday? Given the vital importance of fish products to many small businesses around the coast, has he made any approaches to the French authorities to ensure that access to the French markets is allowed?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We believe in a single market; we also agree that trade barriers inhibit general wealth creation. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of the incidents that he has mentioned, I will ensure that they are taken up by the appropriate Department.

Mr. Bellingham: When the Minister next meets Mr. Jacques Delors, will he ask why Britain is securing the overwhelming bulk of inward investment in the European Community? Will he also ask why Black and Decker is closing its plant in Germany and relocating all its operations in Durham? Will he tell Mr. Delors that what Europe needs are the Government's policies, not those of Mr. Delors?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall not ask Mr. Delors those questions, because I think that I know the answers —and I think that my hon. Friend does as well. Having lowered inflation and interest rates and controlled public expenditure, we are now a magnet for overseas investment; that is why we are one of the few European Union countries firmly on the road to economic recovery.

Bosnia

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy towards the conflict in Bosnia.

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in Bosnia.

Mr. Hurd: With our European Union partners, we continue to support the co-chairmen's efforts to bring the parties to a negotiated settlement. The Bosnian parties met in Geneva on 18 and 19 January and are due to meet again on 10 February. With other UNPROFOR contributors, we are continuing the humanitarian relief effort. On my visit to Bosnia recently, I saw the first-rate contribution that our troops and civilians are making despite the obstacles and dangers that they face. We are committed to maintaining that effort through the winter. We are considering the future of UNPROFOR with others concerned, and I carried that further in New York and Washington yesterday and the day before; but no decisions have been taken.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that in view of the continuing tragedy in Bosnia there can be no justification for allowing the British troops to leave?
Indeed, what the right hon. Gentleman has just said confirms that. Any troops who left would leave Bosnia's civilian population entirely at the mercy of the local warlords.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the fact that the international community has so far failed to end the aggression perpetrated by the Serbs and Croats may, unfortunately, encourage others in various unsettled parts of Europe to carry out similar acts of aggression and ethnic cleansing? The tragedy does not affect Bosnia alone.

Mr. Hurd: I think that I am right in believing that the hon. Gentleman has consistently—or at any rate, for a long time—advocated military intervention, or at least air strikes. How does he reconcile that stance with urging us to continue our current military and humanitarian efforts? We must ensure that we have the right balance between the effectiveness of our troops and the effectiveness of the aid effort and find ways of improving both; we need to make a calm judgment on the basis of the latest evidence.
I have encouraged the Secretary-General of the United Nations to report on the new thinking of the new staff whom he has on the ground. On the basis of that report, and in consultation with allies and partners, we shall be able to reach a considered conclusion on the right balance—probably next month.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending condolences to the family of Paul Goodall, the aid worker who was so brutally murdered last week, together with our sympathy to the families of the two men who were shot? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those aid workers were sent out to Bosnia through the Crown Agents in Sutton in my constituency? Does he recognise that aid workers are largely unsung heroes in Bosnia? Moreover, the message that has come back to me is that they are determined to continue their work, which they consider to be a moral imperative.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. I know of her interest in the matter through the Crown Agents in her constituency. It is striking that, despite the tragic murder of Mr. Goodall, his comrades have clearly said that they want to continue. So the Overseas Development Administration has decided, after a temporary suspension of our convoys, to resume its work, which is clearly the wish of the people who drive. I saw for myself that, despite all the obstacles and the dangers that they run, they rightly believe that the aid that they get through contributes substantially to reducing the suffering, the cold and the hunger, of the people whom they help.

Mr. Corbett: While joining in the expression of sympathy to the family of Paul Goodall, may I commend the courage of my constituent, Simon King, who was injured in the same incident and may I thank, through the Foreign Secretary, all those concerned with Mr. King's rescue and care? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that Mr. King and his colleagues are expected back in the United Kingdom on Saturday and that all proper arrangements have been made for them? In thinking about the future of our part in the humanitarian effort in Bosnia, will the Foreign Secretary pay special regard to the wish of Mr. King, his colleagues and many others that it should continue?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have ensured that the two survivors of that tragedy are

properly looked after. We must consider not just whether to continue the humanitarian and military effort but whether it is as well organised as it could be or whether improvements can be made. Three new minds are at work on the problem that the hon. Gentleman raises: Mr. Akashi, whom I saw in Split, acting on behalf of the United Nations Secretary-General did a good job in Cambodia and is looking at the civilian side; General Sir Michael Rose, who everybody knows is an outstanding and thoughtful soldier; and the new French general, General de la Presle. We must consider not just whether we should continue, but, if we and the other troop contributors continue, how we can improve the present balance of effort so that more help reaches the people who need it.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Bosnia still has a Government in which Croats, Serbs and Muslims serve together? Will he admit that the British Government recognise that as the legitimate Government of Bosnia? In that context, is it not unfair to treat it merely as a warring faction?

Mr. Hurd: We regard the Bosnian Government as one of the parties that need to reach a negotiated settlement. We believe that the Serbs are mainly responsible for the fighting, but the Croats joined in later and are also to blame. All three sides have committed atrocities. But the point that is emerging more and more clearly and on which there is total agreement in Washington is that a negotiated settlement is needed. Yesterday in Washington, I was trying to explore how the United States can be associated more clearly and openly with the negotiations, not in discussing a settlement imposed on the Bosnian Government in Sarajevo but in trying to associate the Americans more completely with the search for an answer that all three parties will freely accept so that it can last and bring the war to an end. It is clear to me that there will be no military victory. If a settlement is to be negotiated, the sooner it is done the better.

Mr. Wareing: We all share the view of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) that it is tragic that an aid worker has been shot and others have been injured. Will the Foreign Secretary inform the House on the progress that has been made in investigating who the murderers were in that case? Is it true that they were probably members of the 7th Muslim Brigade, made up of what are colloquially termed "mujahedin"? If that should prove to be so, will he call for the disbandment of that brigade?

Mr. Hurd: I cannot answer accurately about that matter. We asked the Bosnian authorities at once to investigate the murder, and they did so. It is reported that a number of people have since been shot on Mount Igman. We are asking the Bosnian authorities for particulars of exactly what occurred, and who the people involved were. It has been reported that one of them may have been carrying a United Kingdom passport—a document which may or may not have been genuine. There is much obscurity and murkiness about this episode, but we are trying to have light shed on it. I will let the hon. Gentleman know how we get on with our inquiries.

Sir Michael Marshall: What opportunity has my right hon. Friend had to take stock of the current state of sanctions in Serbia and Croatia? In particular, does he feel


that the apparent grinding down of the problems faced in Croatia can play a part in helping to end the tragedy in Bosnia?

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that we must maintain sanctions at full force against Serbia until the authorities there comply with the Security Council resolutions. We have to take very careful account of the way in which Croatia has handled the matter in recent months. There is no doubt that this question will be considered again by the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday.

Dr. John Cunningham: We all join in the expression of condolence to the family of Mr. Goodall. However, is not the inescapable conclusion of the past few months that all the objectives set by the London conference on Bosnia have failed—with the possible exception of the humanitarian aid effort, which itself is now in some difficulty? Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) right when he says that, regrettably, the failure to confront not just Serbian but also Croatian aggression in Bosnia is a clear signal to like-minded people in other areas of instability in eastern Europe? Does that not pose a grave threat to the security of central and western Europe too?
Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that when he vacillates about whether to take the troops out or leave them in, he encourages Serbs and Croats to maintain their aggressive stance in Bosnia? If we are to come out of this terrible tragedy with any credibility at all, should not the international community at the very least maintain, if not improve, the humanitarian aid programme, and is that not impossible without the presence of troops on the ground?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman's last point may prove to be accurate. This is one of the things that we have to change. There is no vacillation here. I do not think that the Opposition or the country wants us to act suddenly or unilaterally, leaving others in the lurch. We have to consult countries such as Canada, whose Foreign Minister I talked to on Monday. We have to work with those who are in a similar position. The situation has to be weighed up. In today's world, we cannot do everything in secret. I have been completely open with the House and with the public as to the stage that we have reached.
I should have thought that that was a reasoned process. It is quite contrary to the way in which the Opposition —the Labour party recently and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) constantly—have performed. Once again the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has used the word "confront" when talking about how to deal with the Serbs and the Croats. What does he mean? Is he talking of air strikes? There is a case for air support for operations like those to relieve the Canadians in Srebrenica and to open Tuzla airport. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is seriously saying that problems like the siege of Sarajevo and that entire tragedy can be solved permanently by bombing from the air, as he has suggested in the past, he is at odds not only with military opinion here but, as I discovered in Washington yesterday, with a much wider body of opinion. People who advance such arguments in such a vague way need to be pinned down as to what they propose. Otherwise, their advice is less than helpful.

Mr. Elletson: During his recent visit to Bosnia, did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to calculate the

amount of British humanitarian aid that is reaching the people for whom it is intended? Is he aware that many people in this country now believe that humanitarian aid is merely fuelling the warring factions and keeping the war going? Is it not time for us to ask ourselves what on earth Britain is doing in Bosnia?

Mr. Hurd: What we are doing is keeping people alive who would otherwise be dead. What we are doing is providing some assurance of heat and electricity for some hours a day for people in the fearful communist high-rise flats in which many in Bosnia live. What we are doing is providing food that will keep people alive who might otherwise die. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that there are obstructions and that not all of the requirements —indeed, much less than we would wish—get through. What we have to judge is whether we can remove the obstructions, bureaucratic and otherwise, and improve our effort or whether it cannot be improved and whether the risks are so great that we should pull out. However, my hon. Friend should be in no doubt about the consequences in humanitarian terms of an abrupt and unconsidered decision to withdraw.

Subsidiarity

Mr. Cunliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his French counterpart to discuss the principle of subsidiarity.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I last formally discussed subsidiarity with my opposite number at the Anglo-French summit on 26 July last year. Since then, the Government have co-operated closely with the French on implementation of the subsidiarity principle. This was instrumental in ensuring that the Commission's subsidiarity report to the Brussels European Council was a substantial document.

Mr. Cunliffe: When will the Minister and the Government be prepared to come clean about the secret hit list of European Community measures that have been agreed by the British and French Governments? The measures deal mainly with environmental and social policy and, if enforced, will adversely affect the vast majority of the British people. In view of the Government's clandestine methods and tactics, does not their consistent preaching of the gospel of open government to the House and the people smell of hypocrisy and cant?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is nothing secretive about the process. All member states have let the Commission know their priorities for making a success of the practical implementation of the subsidiarity principle. I well understand that such an exercise may not appeal to the centralising tendencies of Labour Members, who may be prepared to let more issues be decided in Brussels. We not only got it written into the treaty that there should be a subsidiarity test, but we wish to see it carried forward into practical effect. That is why we were pleased that the great majority of our proposals have now been accepted by the Community as a whole.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members at any rate are delighted to hear that he makes no apology for the lists submitted by the British and French Governments? Will he give us an update on progress so far in amending or abolishing EC


directives and assure us that he and the French Government will take forward the principle in respect of any future unnecessary and intrusive legislation?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The treaty requirement is to apply the subsidiarity test only to future proposals, but, beyond that, it was agreed voluntarily that the Commission and Council should look back at the existing EC statute book. The Commission itself estimates that 25 per cent. of the existing volume of legislation will be amended or repealed in the light of the subsidiarity exercise.

Peru (Death Penalty)

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Peruvian Government regarding implementation of the death penalty in that country following the national referendum in October 1993.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have made no representations.

Mr. McFall: The Minister will be aware that a central issue in the report by the parliamentary group for human rights, which I shall present next week, is the death penalty. Is he aware that the death penalty is administered by military judges who have no legal qualifications and who convict more than 95 per cent. of the people who come before them? Will he accept from me that the young people whom I met in the Huallaga valley last September will be the innocent victims of that penalty and that their only crime is to find themselves crushed between Sendero Luminoso and the army? Will he therefore impress on Peru that it is in violation of its international obligations under the American convention and that what is needed is not the death penalty but an independent and untainted judiciary?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Last year, Peru amended its constitution to permit an extension of the death penalty and to apply it to terrorist offences. That constitution was agreed in a referendum and it is up to the people and the Government of Peru to apply their own laws in their own way. I can give the hon. Gentleman one assurance: the new constitution refers to the use of the death penalty being in conformity with the laws and treaties to which Peru subscribes, which may answer the second point that he made.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a referendum on the death penalty in Bermuda about three years ago, but that did not seem to prevent the Government on that occasion from interfering and recommending that Bermuda should change its mind about the death penalty?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The international status and relationship with this country in the case of Bermuda are rather different to those in the case of Peru, as the hon. Gentleman surely knows.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that we ought to get rid of the death penalty from our own statutes so that we could then campaign around the world to get rid of that barbaric practice in all countries?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Whatever our views about the death penalty, Conservative Members believe that it is up to sovereign states to amend their constitutions in their

own way. As I have said, in this case that was done by referendum and we respect that judgment of the Peruvian people.

Middle East

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest prospects for a comprehensive peace in the middle east.

Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to promote peace in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Lebanon, Israel and the occupied territories and Jordan from 3 to 6 January. The Prime Minister met Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan in London on 11 January. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary held discussions with the Lebanese Prime Minister in London on 25 and 26 January. I am encouraged by the determination of all the parties to make progress towards a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

Mr. Luff: Against the background of the great courage being shown by Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Syria and Jordan in furthering the peace process, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the welcome for the Government's decision to extend £50 million of export credit to Lebanon? Can he confirm that that credit will be used in part to build civil defence orders, which will further enhance the security of the region? Against that background, does he not feel that the time has come for the British Government to drop the arms embargo on Israel, an embargo which Britain applies uniquely among European Community nations?

Mr. Hogg: In the case of the arms embargo on Israel, which was imposed following the invasion by Israel of south Lebanon, there is an obligation on Israel under the provisions of UN resolution 425 to leave south Lebanon. I hope that that will happen soon. It will be much easier to relax the arms embargo so far as Israel is concerned when that happens.

Mr. Burden: While welcoming the continued progress being made in peace talks between Israel and the PLO, does the Minister agree that it is rather dangerous that the Israeli Premier has been saying that peace is still some way off, and that that could send out entirely the wrong message? Does he agree that confidence-building measures are vital and that for the Palestinians, who have been under occupation since 1967, a good confidence-building measure which Israel has in its power to institute is the release of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners who remain in Israeli jails?

Mr. Hogg: There has, indeed, been progress by Israel in releasing prisoners and that is very much to be commended. There are people who are still held and we should like there to be further progress in that area.
On the subject of Prime Minister Rabin's comments, it is important that Prime Minister Rabin is realistic, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should like there to be an early agreement on this stage of the talks.

Mr. Batiste: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, as and when the British Government wish to invoke it, they have powers under the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 to prevent British companies providing information to the Arab Boycott Office for the purpose of the boycott of Israel, in just the same way as the Government invoked those powers against the United States some years ago?

Mr. Hogg: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is right about the effect of the legislation to which he refers, but I will certainly write to him. I think that persuasion is the best way forward, and I am pleased by the encouraging signs that we see among the Gulf Co-operation Council countries concerning a relaxation of the boycott, especially in its tertiary and secondary phases.

Mr. Worthington: Has the Minister read the speech by Prime Minister Rabin to the Council of Europe on 26 January, which in some respects could have been delivered by Yasser Arafat? Prime Minister Rabin called on Europe to contribute to the transformation of the region through economic development and co-operation, by rehabilitating refugees, developing water and natural resources, overcoming environmental hazards and regulating arms control. Is it not true that Europe has still not measured up to that task, and what does the Minister intend to do about it?

Mr. Hogg: I have not read Prime Minister Rabin's speech, but I shall be happy to do so, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought it to my attention. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it plain that the United Kingdom is contributing about £70 million over the next three years. Implicit in the question was a suggestion that the United Kingdom Government should increase our own public expenditure in the occupied territories. That sounds awfully like an additional commitment to additional public spending that has not been cleared by what the Opposition amusingly call their Treasury Front Bench.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that ultimately an enduring peace in the middle east will depend on a sense of religious toleration in all countries, which has previously been conspicuous by its absence? In particular, has he seen recent reports by Middle East Watch, Amnesty International and the Jubilee Campaign on the increasing oppression of the Christian minority of 200,000 people in Iran, culminating in the death of Bishop Hovsepian Mehr of the Assemblies of God only 10 days ago? Will my right hon. and learned Friend urge the Iranian Government to allow the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to send in a special rapporteur to examine the position of Christian minorities in that country?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. I am afraid that the state of human rights in Iran is a matter for considerable concern. We need to take every opportunity not only to impress upon the Government of Iran our concern about those matters but to expose to international opinion what is going on there.

Bangladesh

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the Government of Bangladesh about human rights issues in the Chittagong hill tracts.

The Parliamentary Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We regularly remind the Bangladesh Government of our concerns about human rights in the Chittagong hill tracts.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister make further representations to the Government of Bangladesh about the illegal arrests, torture and rape taking place there, as well as the massacre of tribal people that occurred on 17 November 1993? Will he also make representations to the Indian Government to allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other aid agencies access to the refugee camps to which many of the indigenous people have escaped?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I last made representations about the problems in the Chittagong hill tracts to the Bangladeshi Finance Minister less than two weeks ago when he was in London. Our high commissioner made representations to the chairman of the special committee responsible for discussions with representatives from the Chittagong hill tracts, who is a Minister in Bangladesh. So we are continuing to make representations. As for United Nations involvement, that is not the wish of either of the Governments concerned. However, the hon. Lady will be pleased to learn that there are strong signs that refugees in India wish to return to the Chittagong hill tracts. The fact that they are contemplating doing that shows that the situation must be improving.

Brazil

Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department is doing to promote trade with Brazil.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Like all Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts, those in Brazil have export promotion as a top priority. They seek out export opportunities, advise British companies on the business to be won in their markets, lobby on their behalf for major contracts and against discrimination, organise visits by Ministers and trade missions with the specific objective of winning business, among other tasks. I am happy to say that our exports to Brazil were up by more than 50 per cent. in 1993 compared with 1992.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is he aware that that positive answer is endorsed by news that Westland Helicopters has secured a £150 million order to supply nine Superlynx helicopters to the Brazilian navy? Does he agree that that demonstrates not only the strength of the defence industry in Britain, beating off tough competition from the United States and France, but the healthy trade relations that we enjoy with Brazil?

Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, 1994 has got off to an excellent start in our exports to Brazil and I welcome the announcement by Westland of


its success in the £150 million order to supply helicopters to the Brazilian navy. Our embassy in Brazil supported the negotiations throughout.

Mr. McAvoy: The Minister has confirmed that there are arms exports to Brazil. Will he clarify whether Britain also gives aid to Brazil? If the answer is affirmative and bearing in mind the fact that the former Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Younger, and the former Malaysian foreign

Minister said that there were links between aid and arms to Malaysia, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that such links will not be established with Brazil?

Mr. Goodlad: The aid programme to Brazil is running at about £4 million a year. Its priorities cover forestry, the urban environment, health and help to non-governmental organisations engaged in rural and urban poverty, including those that help street children. Of course there is no connection between the aid programme and arms sales.

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you and the Secretary of State for Employment notice of the matter that I intend to raise. It arises from the ethyl chloride leak and subsequent flash fire at the Associated Octel company in Ellesmere Port in my constituency.
Have you, Madam Speaker, had any request from the Secretary of State to make a statement on the health and safety implications of that serious incident, which could have had dire effects on my constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad)? Had the wind changed, it would also have affected the constituents of the Secretary of State himself and those of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).
In raising the point of order, I am sure that the House would want to congratulate the Cheshire fire service on the bravery and skill of the work it did, as well as the efforts of the emergency services and emergency planning team, who carried out splendid work last night.

Madam Speaker: The latter comments of the hon. Gentleman are not a matter for the Chair, nor are they a point of order.
I have not heard from the Secretary of State that he is seeking to make a statement on that matter. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it has been referred to the Health and Safety Executive. He may like to find other methods of pursuing it in the House.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the Votes and Proceedings of the House, which are published in the House papers today? On Monday, the Secretary of

State for Transport tabled the important Draft Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994, only to withdraw it on Tuesday and replace it with another order. I have tried to ascertain from the Department of Transport what were the differences between the orders and what were the errors which, I assume, existed in the first order, and it was unable to tell me. I went to the House of Commons Library to see whether any communication had been made, and still found no explanation of the alterations.
Do you have any capacity to require the Secretary of State to withdraw the second order and get it right? Even the second order is altered manuscript, and it seems indicative of the sloppy nature of the way in which the Secretary of State is handling the channel tunnel business. He should be given 5 minus for effort. I hope that the matter can be taken away and looked at again.

Madam Speaker: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, that is not a matter for the Chair. Had he pursued his inquiries a little further, he would have found that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments exists to look into such matters.

BILL PRESENTED

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Sir John Hannam, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Sir Trevor Skeet, Ms Liz Lynne, Sir James Kilfedder, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Ms Angela Eagle, Sir Richard Body and Mr. Ken Livingstone, presented a Bill to amend the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 for the purpose of permitting the title of podiatrist to be used as an alternative to that of state registered chiropodist under the terms of that Act: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 4 February, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

Registration of Small Children's Homes

Ms Ann Coffey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of a children's home where accommodation is provided for one or more children, and for connected purposes.
At the moment, private children's homes that accommodate four or more children are required to register with local authorities under the Children Act 1989 and are subject to regular inspection by the local independent inspection unit. Where minimum standards are not being met, registration can be withdrawn so that no children can be placed in the unit in question. Where three or fewer children are accommodated in an establishment, it cannot be registered under the Children Act. Moreover, the fostering regulations do not apply because staff are employed on a rotational basis.
Although the Arrangement for the Placement of Children Regulations and the Review of Children's Cases Regulations apply, providing placement, representation and review procedures, children placed in such homes do not enjoy the additional protection that registration and regular inspection provide.
My involvement in the issue arises from a constituency problem brought to my attention by Dr. and Mrs. Lloyd, who had sublet their house and who found out, after thousands of pounds' worth of vandalism and damage had been done, that it had been used as a small children's home by an organisation called Parallel Parents. Some excellent investigative journalism by the local paper, the Stockport Express, and an in-depth documentary on BBC Manchester's "Close Up North" programme uncovered serious causes for concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and I saw the Minister at the time, and expressed our concern. A study by the social service inspectorate was requested by the then Under-Secretary of State in March 1993. The conclusions of that report were placed in the Library earlier this month.
The report looked at 17 authorities in the north-west, of which only six used unregistered children's homes. Those undertaking the study had difficulty in identifying the number of homes in existence; there is no way of knowing how many of those homes are in existence or of monitoring their standards of care or quality, because there is no requirement to register.
Given the recommendation of the Warner report that there should be a national directorate of children's homes with a national code of practice laying down minimum standards, it is incredible that a loophole in the law allows small children's homes to operate with no means of enforcing a consistent minimum standard of care—something demanded of larger homes.
The SSI study said that there was cause for concern about unregistered homes run by organisations such as Parallel Parents. It made the point that children placed in such homes were very difficult children and young people, who had failed to respond in local authority establishments: children with extensive criminal records: children with personality disorders; disturbed children; abused and abusing children; and children with drug and alcohol problems.
Asked on "Close Up North" about his child care approach, Sean Fitzpatrick, the proprietor of Parallel Parents, said:
We say, 'Tell us your dreams, and we'll make your dreams come true.'
What on earth does that mean?
As for what it means in practice, the SSI study stated tellingly that, in small homes, the most difficult and vulnerable young people were receiving care from staff with the least experience, the least skill and the least training. It expressed concern about young untrained staff undertaking therapy with very difficult children, and about the fact that those staff received little supervision, support or training.
Staff turnover was high and recruitment haphazard. Poor material standards were identified in some of the homes. There was evidence that proprietors were operating with fewer than four children to evade the stringencies of registration, particularly in relation to fire safety. For example, inspectors were appalled to find young people living in a unit that had been refused registration for six children because of a substantial fire risk.
The agencies concerned had clearly moved into providing services in unregistered homes because it had been simpler to set them up than to go through the process of registration. Some agencies were operating satellite unregistered homes in addition to a registered home, and children were being moved from home to home without the local authority being notified. I am sure that the House will agree that that is an unacceptable form of subcontracting.
It is little wonder that there have been concerns about children left unsupervised, and about control being absent, with children allowed to get up when they like and do what they like, and with disturbed childern being a risk to themselves and to others. Children have been placed in homes where the proprietor's expressed philosophy constitutes a total abdication of responsibility for care and control.
Nor can local authorities escape their responsibilities in this matter. The SSI report said that difficult-to-place children, in crisis at the time of the placement, were placed in unregistered homes—an "any port in a storm" approach —at a cost of £500 to £1,500 per week.
The report said that many authorities had taken the publicity of the providing agency at face value and had been disinclined to question providers closely about the details of the provision on offer. Very few asked for information about the outcome.
That damning study concludes that there is a need to ensure that the Arrangements for the Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991 and the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 are applied as required.
Since then, a circular has been issued to local authorities with notes of guidance on the standards that are appropriate. That guidance reminds local authorities that inquiries into standards should treat the placement as if it were in a larger home. It clearly states that the Department of Health does not intend the standard of care to be lower than in a larger home. In that case, why not regulate for registration, and in so doing provide for regular independent inspection to ensure that those minimal standards are adhered to?
The study was confined to the north-west, but the problem is not restricted to that region, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), a co-sponsor of the Bill, made clear in his excellent speech in an Adjournment


debate on 20 January 1994, in which he raised concerns about children's homes in his constituency. This is a national problem and a national scandal.
The Bill seeks to make all children's homes subject to registration and independent inspection, which ensures basic standards and an independent assessment of those standards in all homes.
All inquiries into children's deaths have clearly shown that checks have to be made in the placement of children. Those checks do not apply in the placement of children in small children's homes. Only compulsory registration will ensure that, and ensure inspection other than that of the placing social worker.
It is insane to allow the situation to continue. From April this year, small homes for adults will be required to register. Why should not children's homes be required to do so?
Some proprietors provide poorer standards of care than are acceptable, yet local authorities place children in those situations. The House has an obligation to protect vulnerable children from those who would exploit them and from those who do not care enough adequately to protect them.
Only by making registration of all children's homes compulsory can our duty of care to desperate, disturbed young people begin to be fulfilled. Only the House has the power to achieve that. I ask that that power be exercised. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Superficially, the Bill purports to give children who are already in care some additional protection. At first glance, it would appear that there is a national scandal, with widespread abuse of the existing law. Curiously, however, the only evidence that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) has been able to produce is a single landlord who has complained that his house was damaged. Apart from the civil remedy that is available in that example, she has not alleged that any of the children in that establishment suffered any damage, which, of course, would be contrary to existing law.
There is a knee-jerk reaction and a socialist tendency to regulate, inspect and, where possible, to provide and extend to NALGO a monopoly in the care of children. I should like to draw attention to the work of several small children's homes in my constituency, where dedicated teams of professionals, who have all the qualifications, provide care on an emergency and respite basis to a small group of disturbed young children. Incidentally, those children are invariably already the subject of care orders, so if they are not being visited regularly by social workers, and if the premises in which they are accommodated are not regularly inspected, local authorities are already abandoning their responsibilities.
Emergency and respite care provides one-to-one security not just for children but for the public, who often need protection from such youngsters, who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. I accept that, if there were a dramatic loophole, and if there had been a catalogue of cases of abuse, the House would be anxious to intervene immediately. But the proposal to extend the control of all those establishments to local authorities and

to the muesli-munching, open-toed sandal brigade of social services in those errant county councils would be a very great mistake.
The hon. Lady failed to mention that the problem of providing accommodation certainly for those who have been in conflict with the criminal law is already provided for in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Later this year, secure training orders will be introduced, and satisfactory accommodation will be provided for those youngsters to ensure that they do not continue to reoffend.
The existing law is perfectly adequate to deal with any complaint. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the Children Act 1989 is in force, and any single case of abuse would be a breach of the existing law. There is no possible reason for extending registration to smaller units that provide an extremely important service.
Some of the homes in my constituency that provide such a service come into conflict with the local authority, which of course is always keen to extend—[Interruption.] Opposition Members sneer and jibe, as though there is something wrong with providing care for those youngsters, who are often young offenders from very difficult backgrounds. I challenge Opposition Members to find better care anywhere else in the country. Torbay has a long and fine tradition of providing such care for very difficult youngsters.
To change the law on the basis of a single complaint from a single landlord would be a waste of the time of the House, and I certainly urge the House to oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business)—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a convention of the House that, when hon. Members oppose a ten-minute Bill, their voices are followed by their vote. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who opposed the Bill in a five-minute, rather squalid, speech, never opened his mouth to express opposition to the vote. That is against the conventions of the House, and I hope that you deprecate it, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) acted quite correctly. He opposed by saying, "No." [Interruption.] Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman say, "No." He does not have to cause a Division, he has only to signify no, and the House understands that. Therefore, I am able to declare that the Ayes have it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You are a bit nearer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). There is not much in it, but you are a shade nearer than we are. I know that the hon. Gentleman has different names. He goes under the name of Rupert Allason, and sometimes under the name of Nigel West. When the Tory Whips could not find him, he had another name, and he now turns out to be a ventriloquist.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has cheered me up on a very gloomy day.

Question agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Keith Hill, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Alun Michael, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Alan Milburn, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Neil Gerrard.

REGISTRATION OF SMALL CHILDREN'S HOMES

Ms Ann Coffey accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the registration of a children's home where accommodation is provided for one or more children, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 March, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Scientific Research

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move,
That the draft Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
That the draft Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

Mr. Waldegrave: The draft orders declare three new bodies to be research councils for the purposes of the Science and Technology Act 1965. The orders were laid before the House on 17 December.
I am delighted that the House has this opportunity to focus on the Government's policy for science, engineering and technology, and in particular on the restructuring of the research councils system. Science is central to our culture and heritage, and the foundation for our future success as an advanced manufacturing and trading nation.
Today is something of a science day for Britain. First, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been underlining at the annual lunch of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee the fundamental importance of science and engineering for the wealth and well being of the country. As my right hon. Friend said in Japan in September:
perhaps we have undervalued science and the application of science in the United Kingdom over the last 20 or 30 years … it's my determination to make sure that British science remains first class".
Today the Prime Minister repeated that commitment, urging that we must root out what he described as the traditional bias against science which persists in some parts of our culture, and emphasising that, even against the absolute necessity of restraining public science, science will remain in future a high priority.
Secondly, the debate is being held in prime parliamentary time. I understand that that is a result of the usual co-operative arrangements between the usual channels at the present time. Thirdly, the BBC, The Daily Telegraph and my office have launched an excellent joint initiative to encourage participation in and enthusiasm for science called "Megalab UK", which, among other things, offers the prospect of being able to use my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), as an object for experimentation, a role for which he volunteered after a relatively small number of hours of persuasion.
When I took this job as the first Minister in charge of the new Office of Science and Technology and Britain's first Cabinet Minister for Science since the noble Lord Hailsham, it seemed to me that we needed a shift in thinking. We needed to close the gap between science and technology—between academically driven research and the wealth-creating sector of the United Kingdom economy.
That was the fundamental issue that the Government addresed in our May 1993 White Paper, "Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology". It was about how to maintain the


independence of our researchers and the excellence of British science while at the same time creating a real partnership and common sense of purpose among all the funders, purveyors, beneficiaries and users of research in Government, the universities, commerce and industry. In other words, it was about how to harness our excellence in science and engineering more systemically to the creation of wealth throughout the United Kingdom.
The White Paper set out a strategy to bring this partnership about. It was widely welcomed by industry, academia and commentators. Good progress is being made with this implementation, and these orders represent one part of the story. I shall briefly recap the rest of the new policy framework. We intend to publish a new "Forward Look" on Government-funded science and technology, and that will appear for the first time in April. It will be a clear and up-to-date statement of strategy throughout Government, with a five to 10 year perspective.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the hitch in appointing a chief executive for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is the new council. I shall be entirely frank, because it is always wise to be so with the hon. Gentleman: we have not yet found anyone good enough for the role. After discussion with my senior officials, I have asked that we should go out and find more candidates for the post, because, although distinguished people applied for it, we have not yet found anyone with whom we feel entirely comfortable. As the hon. Gentleman above all hon. Members will understand, it is a crucial job.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I know that my right hon. Friend accepts that the formation of the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research council has been warmly welcomed. That is because of the emphasis that will be placed on wealth creation. Will he ensure that the new chief executive has not only high-quality experience of research but experience of wealth creation and industry as well?

Mr. Waldegrave: The person appointed must carry the confidence of the engineering and physics communities and the chemical communities. Ideally, he will also have experience in industry, but we are begining to describe a paragon. We need somebody who will carry some weight, and, although we have had some distinguished candidates, we have not yet found someone entirely right.
However, the new part-time chairman, Mr. Alan Rudge, a distinguished man, is already working hard with the new council and the existing committees, so there is no problem in waiting a little longer.
To continue, the strategy we shall set out in "Forward Look", to be well-founded, will need some foresight. That is why we announced for the first time in the White Paper a British technology foresight programme. Preparations for this are going well, and I shall announce the shape of the programme at the end of the month. The programme will take markets as well as technology fully into account.
Our strategy must be based on innovation in all sectors of the economy. The industry departments are working to promote best practice by industry in research and development and industry's awareness of and access to science and technology.
The strategy must address issues of education and training, and must increase the general public's awareness and understanding of science. Young people are obviously the most crucial target. I launched the Government's new campagin to promote the public understanding of science on 11 January.
Preparations for the first ever National Week of Science, engineering and technology set7, which begins on 18 March, are well in hand and more than 1,000 events have been organised around the country through the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
On a nationwide level, I have already mentioned the launch of Megalab UK, the result of collaboration between the Office of Science and Technology, The Daily Telegraph and the BBC in the shape of Radio 1 and "Tomorrow's World". It was launched today in The Daily Telegraph and on Radio 1.
All the themes—strategy, quality, partnership, foresight innovation, education and training and understanding—bear directly on the key roles of our research councils. The research council system is the essential vehicle for channelling much of the United Kingdom's support for high-quality scientific research and post-graduate training. I intend, however, to remodel that vehicle from 1 April this year, while building on the undoubted solidity of the existing design. That is what the orders are all about.
In some respects, change is already well under way. The research councils are now under the general direction of Sir John Cadogan, former director of research at BP, who took up the new post of Director General of the Research Councils within the Office of Science and Technology at the beginning of January. He is now helping me in my task of ensuring that the research council system works to its full potential, developing new mechanisms for creating partnerships between the science and engineering base and industry and commerce.
I am delighted to report to the House that he has thrown himself with characteristic vigour—a number of hon. Members know him—into the task ahead of him. His role is to work with the councils so that their output, be it research findings or highly trained people, is excellent and also useful. The two are not mutually exclusive, and we shall have achieved our purposes when both objectives are seen as valuable and complementary.
In the short time that he has been in post, Sir John has been working with the chief executives of the research councils to ensure that the best possible use is made of the enhanced science budget that I was able to announce in November. As a result, I am pleased to report to the House that he has been able to double the funds available for distribution among the six new research councils in the coming financial year.
He has persuaded each council to contribute resources to a central fund by means of efficiency savings, which can now be devoted to front-line science and postgraduate training. It is critical that resources for science should fund top-class research and training to the greatest possible extent.
The fact that such a redistribution proved possible so early in the tenure of the new DGRC augurs well for the new system of setting clear priorities and the increased efficiency that we are looking for.
I invited the director general to come forward with a strategy for use of the resultant £15·5 million, about half of which comes from new money and about half from efficiency gains, but all of which is new money for


front-line science. I am, as a result, able to announce today the launch of some significant new intiatives, and the expansion of relevant existing programmes, which demonstrably put into practice our White Paper commitment to reorientate our research and postgraduate training effort so that it supports wealth creation and the quality of life. I hope that I will be able to show that those innovations demonstrate that there is no contradiction at all between doing that and supporting good, curiosity-driven research.
I shall be giving details of the allocations to the research councils and other bodies from the science budget in a written statement to the House, and I have deposited further details of the new programmes in the Library. But I want briefly to sketch out the major elements of the new and expanded activities.
First, I plan to launch a new competitive scheme to encourage researchers to collaborate with industry, making available grants that are complementary to the funding provided by industry for strategic research. That will be a pilot scheme-—£3·5 million for the academic half year which falls in 1994–95—involving the Medical Research Council, the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. I propose to name the awards made under the scheme ROPAs after the White Paper "Realising our Potential".
The funds will allow researchers to work on a topic related to the work for which industry is paying, but of the researchers' own choosing. Unlike existing joint funding schemes, such as LINK, the topic should not be part of the programme supported by the industrial funding, but should be related research in which the aim should be to carry it forward to the stage at which it becomes accessible for exploitation.
The unique feature of that approach is that the conventional peer review system will not be used. Instead, we shall take industry's recognition of the researcher as an indicator of his or her quality and commitment, although, of course, the researcher's proposals will need to be properly refereed, monitored and evaluated.
In a parallel move on the postgraduate training front, I plan to drive some of the collaborative awards in science and engineering—the CASE awards—from the industrial end, so that the studentships are available to firms that have demonstrated their ability to provide the right environment for postgraduate training. There will be at least 100 additional awards to industry, giving industry the opportunity to select its own academic partner and topic. That is an important innovation. We see the need for training to respond to the needs of all potential employers.
Continuing the theme of interaction with industry, an additional £2 million is being provided to complement funds already set aside by the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to launch an innovative manufacturing programme which will also engage the research community of the Economic and Social Research Council. I expect to expand that programme next year to the biotechnology sector through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and perhaps later to other councils.
Priority in the distribution of research funds is being given to areas identified by industry as being of strategic importance. For example, I shall be putting extra funds into the human and animal genome programmes and

immunology, £3·4 million, and chemistry, £4·5 million. In all cases, the selection of general research areas will take careful account of the long-term interests of the users.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that members of the Civil Service attended the recent conference in Cambridge on rare breeds of cattle and biodiversity. Is the Minister's Department involved in that important work, because not only the human genome project is important, but the animal genome and the botanical genome projects are potentially important?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall consult the chief scientific adviser, whose own field lies in this area, about that. I am sure that the Department is in touch with that. I hope that I shall not offend any of the other powerful centres around the country if I say that Cambridge is becoming not only a European but a world centre in that work.
I have said before that people are the single most important element in our research effort. I am therefore delighted to announce funds for some 40 additional Royal Society research fellowships. Those are prestigious five-year research fellowships, at a generous stipend, aimed at giving security to our best researchers.
I have also allocated funds to expand the Royal Academy of Engineering programme of visiting industrial professorships to boost the design component of engineering undergraduate courses, and to make a start to their new professional development scheme based on modular part-time courses.
Those new initiatives represent an important start to the process of re-orientating the research councils towards the aims and policies set out in the White Paper. Over the next six months or so, the director general will be examining the research council programme in great depth, including the arrangements that will need to be put in place to take forward the emerging results of our technology foresight programme.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: What are the total funds involved in those initiatives? Will that be new money, or will it come from the existing science budget?

Mr. Waldegrave: I said that, of the total of about £15·5 million, about half has been found by the director general through efficiency savings, and about half is new, additional money to the science base. All of it is new money for science.
The White Paper "Realising our Potential" also announced our intention to undertake a scrutiny of public sector research establishments to review their future status, sector by sector—looking in depth at privatisation, rationalisation and different options for ownership.
As I informed the House in a written answer on 16 June 1993, that scrutiny is being conducted by a team from the efficiency unit of the Office of Public Service and Science. Members are drawn from other Government Departments and the private sector. The team started work on 13 December and will make recommendations to Sir Peter Levene, the Prime Minister's efficiency adviser, by the end of April 1994. Sir Peter will submit a report to me. It is normal for efficiency unit reports to be published.
The team's terms of reference are to examine research establishments sector by sector, to identify those where privatisation is feasible and desirable. Where that is not the case, it will identify and make recommendations on the potential for rationalisation of facilities and capabilities.


The scrutiny will also examine current ownership and financing arrangements, and will recommend alternative models where that would lead to more effective operation of the customer-contractor principle and better value for money.
It is essential that Britain does not waste resources on out-of-date structures, when it is vital for our future that our output of good science is increased. I look forward to receiving the scrutiny report.
This debate heralds a new chapter in a genuine and enduring British success story. I do not want to look back in time, but rather to focus on a key element of the Government's approach to the challenge that lies before us, as this country strives to compete ever more effectively in the high-tech world in which we live. I want briefly to set in its historical context the reasoning behind the changes the Government are making to the research council system.
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research —the DSIR—and the University Grants Committee were established in 1915 and 1919 respectively, as a way of channelling Government funds into important activities that the Government had no wish directly to control. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) may recall, the University Grants Committee was established primarily to stop Lloyd-George diverting all the funds to the University College of Wales.
That arm's-length principle was also embodied in the Haldane recommendations of 1918, which represent the real foundation of our science research system. Haldane's recommendations set out the principles that governed the operation of our first research councils—the Medical Research Council, founded in 1920, and the original Agricultural Research Council, founded in 1931. Both councils, Haldane's principles and the research system that stemmed from them are all alive and well today. Government, then as now, held the purse strings—but those with central policy responsibilities, then as now, do not tell scientists which projects to undertake.
The same governing principles continued to apply when, following the Trend report of 1963, three more research councils came into being as a result of the Science and Technology Act 1965. The DSIR ceased to exist and the two historic councils—the ARC and MRC—joined three new councils in a new structure, reporting then to the Secretary of State for Education and Science rather than to Privy Council committees. That five-council system has also generally served us well, for the best part of 30 years.
If there is a criticism of the reform of the research council system that occurred in the 1960s, it is that it entailed too much administrative tidying up, and too little strategic direction. Science was joined with education in an academic camp, and technology was given its own separate Ministry. Overall strategic thinking arguably moved the wrong way.
The unfortunate result was a widening of the gap between science and technology, when the opposite was needed. The strategies set out in the Government's 1993 White Paper shifted the direction, to minimise that gap.
In correcting that imbalance, however, the Government have taken care not to overthrow a research council system that has functioned well for many years. To make a clean break with such a distinguished past would have been an unnecessary gamble. Rather, the Government are set on a

path of evolution, building on past successes, in the light of a clear emphasis on the economic and technological partnership between industry and academia, without threatening the excellence of the research itself.
Today, the Government seek the House's approval for draft Orders in Council which declare three new bodies to be research councils for the purposes of the Science and Technology Act 1965. They are: the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council—BBSRC; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council—EPSRC; and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC.
The White Paper announced the intention to create the three new councils from 1 April this year. The orders would, from 1 April, bring the new Councils within the scope of the primary legislation that governs the United Kingdom's research councils; most importantly, the orders will give me power to fund the new councils.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am very much encouraged by what my right hon. Friend has been saying. I think that this is good for the research councils, but I hope that the boundaries are not fixed for ever. I hope that the overlap will be considered realistically, bearing in mind the fact that biotechnology and chemistry could be subdivided into two or three parts. That would not be healthy for either industry.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. Part of the purpose of appointing a director general for research councils is to go some way towards the recommendation of the Morris committee and the House of Lords Select Committee, which argued for a single research council, to avoid the problem of having boundaries.
I came to the conclusion that such a huge structure would end up being more bureaucratic than the single-tier research councils. However, with a director general specifically charged to oversee the boundaries and to ensure that anything that may lie across them or outside the current categories does not escape, we shall address the extremely important problem that my hon. Friend rightly raises.
The new councils were incorporated by royal charter on 16 December. The object of each charter makes explicit the obligations on each council to work to meet the needs of the users of its research and training outputs, and to contribute to the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom and—this is new—the work for the public understanding of science, in line with the mission statements set out in the White Paper.
It is fair that, in cases in which there are large research grants—not in every case—there should be some obligation on those who are receiving public money to demonstrate if possible the importance of what they are doing to the wider community who are paying for it.

Sir Dudley Smith: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have a long-standing interest in the pharmaceutical industry. It is perhaps an industry which, more than any other, through such co-operation can be got across to the public, because of the eventual outcome of new medicines and new lifesaving devices. From what my right hon. Friend has said today, it seems that, although the research council has worked well in the past, there is a better opportunity for further co-operation in that respect.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest and expertise in these matters. I believe that the strong support that we have received from what is, after all, one of Britain's most powerful and successful industries is a sign that we are on the right lines. We have received support and detailed co-operation from the pharmaceutical and chemical industries in this country in the work that we have been doing and are continuing to do.
The clearly defined objects, which are set out in the mission statements which lie before the House and which are reproduced in the schedule to each draft order, give us, for the first time, a clear yardstick against which to measure the overall performance of the research councils, and the degree to which they have introduced appropriate structures and mechanisms to deliver what we are asking of them. That is not empty managerial jargon. The objects articulate clear national purposes.
The councils also throw out a challenge to industry. A partnership clearly needs wholehearted commitment from all the partners; the recent excellent report of the House of Lords Select Committee—which welcomed the broad thrust of what we have done—made the fair point that it is now up to industry to respond if the system is to work properly.

Dr. Bray: The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised that the objectives identified in the schedules represent operational guidance for the research councils. Why do they differ from the mission statements in the White Paper?

Mr. Waldegrave: They differ because we have engaged in further consultation, which I would expect the hon. Gentleman to welcome. The principle on which I have been operating is that, unless we work broadly with the grain of what the scientific and engineering communities want, we will not achieve the success that we want.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House would probably agree that we need more from industry than the warm words with which it has greeted the White Paper and the direction of our policy. I am gratified by the piles of responses from leading industrialists and academics, from which I am able to quote; but if the potential is to be genuinely achieved, we need investment, partnership and a more long-term view. The achievements of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries must be matched with those of a wider section of industrial life.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Is the right hon. Gentleman as concerned as I was to learn that the British Technology Group—which handles one third of the patents resulting from university research—receives 85 per cent. of its income from licences from foreign companies? It says that the British industry is doing nothing to take this up voluntarily. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to make industry take that step more formally? At present it is just a wish, which currently seems to be failing.

Mr. Waldegrave: The statistic that the hon. Gentleman quoted is rather a good indicator of the direction in which we must move. I do not think that the present position is cause for congratulation. The whole thrust of our policy is to build a partnership which we hope will improve that position.
It is because this is very much more than a wish that we are building new partnerships, and—after only a few weeks—beginning to redirect the research councils'

priorities towards forming close working partnerships with industry. It is easy for us to blame industry, but the fault is not all on one side; it also lies with the classic British separation of academia and wealth creation.
The other day, a distinguished scientist told me that there was nowadays not much point in talking about C. P. Snow's "two cultures", arts and sciences. The real cultural division is now between the academic sciences and the sciences connected with manufacture and wealth creation. We now need to reverse what I have described as the division between science and technology, which was somewhat widened by the instutitional structures established in the 1960s. That is an all-party point; I am not being party political.
We used to talk of technology transfer as though it were a linear process, but it is not like that: progress and co-operation must be much more intimately linked, and that is what we are endeavouring to achieve. Along with my colleagues in other Departments, I find that our partners in industry are co-operating wholeheartedly to make the partnerships real; and the new initiatives that I announced earlier are a concrete step towards that end.
There is, however, another side to the coin. Industry does not want Government-funded research to gear itself up simply to meet short-term needs. One of the best ways of protecting long-term research is to gain support from the best and most far-sighted industries. We must sustain our traditional excellence and innovativeness in the core disciplines of biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics. One of the additional amounts that Sir John Cadogan has managed to find is intended to finance the not immediately applied subject of stochastic mathematics.
I should make it clear that the objects of all the councils also reflect the White Paper mission statements in requiring each council to support basic as well as strategic and applied research, with a strong emphasis on quality. I make no apology for stressing that emphasis again. We must have top-quality research; supporting second-rate research is completely wasteful. In this area above all, we must have the courage to close things down when they lose their quality, and to shift money back to excellence.

Mr. Dalyell: On the topic of closing down, may I ask the Chancellor about JET? What is happening in the dispute between personnel paid United Kingdom rates and those paid EC rates?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is the responsibility not of my Department but of the European Community, which has been negotiating with the staff on those matters. My Department has not been directly involved. It is for the Commissioner and JET to negotiate directly.

Mr. Mike Hall: Will the Chancellor comment on the future of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories? I am worried that Daresbury, the leader in the world of nuclear physics, will close down, and I hope that the Chancellor will reassure me this afternoon that that excellent facility in my constituency has a future under the new arrangements that he has announced to the House today.

Mr. Waldegrave: Because of the change in the structure of SERC, the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories need new structures, which are now being considered. In the meantime, those laboratories are being managed as a unity, which is sensible. An option for the


future is that they become a unified research facility, which could be at the service of research universities and the country as a whole. Some universities are interested in managing them. A number of options are being considered.
The hon. Gentleman, who is assiduous on behalf of his constituents and the nation concerning that important facility, will know that decisions must be taken in due course about new facilities for synchrotron radiation at Daresbury. Those decisions have not yet been made but the important facilities that remain at Daresbury will be approaching the end of their life in the next decade, and we must decide what will follow.
Under the Research Council restructuring, two of the five existing councils—the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council—will cease to exist in their present form from 1 April. There are pragmatic as well as strategic reasons for that. In its present form, SERC receives about half of the total funds allocated under the science budget and simply has too great a span of research.
The majority of SERC's portfolio will therefore be divided between the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. That split builds on the logic of SERC's own recent reorganisation of its internal board structure.
The EPSRC will support research in chemistry, mathematics, physics and engineering, and will develop close links with the industries underpinned by the physical sciences and engineering. That council will have an especially prominent role in developing partnerships between scientists and engineers, and industrial and commercial users of research, building on the good work already done by SERC in that area. I pay a warm tribute to the work undertaken by Sir Mark Richmond, the last head of SERC in its old form.
The PPARC will fund research and post-graduate training in particle physics and astronomy. That council will, almost exclusively, support basic research, although it too will have a responsibility to consider its potential contribution to wealth creation, particularly in high quality engineering. The quality of the engineering in many of those great facilities is extremely high.
Important developments are taking place in those sciences. Since the American abdication from the superconducting collider, the European Particle Physics Laboratory, CERN, now stands as the pre-eminent world resource in that area. Decisions must soon be taken about the next generation of particle accelerator, known as the large hadron collider. The creation of PPARC within the research council system will provide a clear focus for consideration of the United Kingdom's approach to such large programmes.
A new council is being created to recognise the increasing importance of research in the life sciences. That council is the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The BBSRC will, to a significant extent, combine the current work in biology and biotechnology of the AFRC and the SERC. It will also develop close links with biologically based industries, in line with its mission statement.
The creation of a dedicated council for these areas of research will make sure that we have the capacity to respond quickly to the many opportunities arising in the

life sciences. It will help us to build on the considerable achievements of United Kingdom researchers in these fields—supporting, for example, the development of disease-resistant crops, or the formulation of new pharmaceutical products.
The three new councils will join the Medical Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council, all of which now have revised charters conforming in all respects to the model of the new councils.

Sir Trevor Skeet: This is a technical and complex arrangement. What are the special responsibilities of the Director General of the Research Councils, and how do they fit in with those of the chief scientific adviser?

Mr. Waldegrave: The director general advises me on the distribution of money to the research councils and on the matter—one that my hon. Friend and I discussed in the Chamber earlier today—of keeping an eye on the boundaries and ensuring proper flexibility and cooperation in the work of the councils. The chief scientific adviser has much wider responsibilities, running across the whole of government. He is, of course, the Prime Minister's chief adviser—not mine, although he works in my Department.
The troika of senior people at the head of my Department—the permanent secretary, Mr. Richard Mottram, the chief scientific adviser and the director general—work together to co-ordinate and provide a sense of direction in the Government's entire science and technology effort.
The revised charters conform to the new model, in a system where each council has a clear focus to meet the needs of the users of its research—a system that will continue to support basic as well as strategic and applied research but will help to ensure that relevance to the country's needs, alongside excellence, is a clear criterion in selecting research proposals for support; and a system committing the councils to promotion of and support for related post-graduate training.
There will be some other significant adjustments in the new system. The Natural Environment Research Council will take over from SERC responsibility for research in earth observation, atmospheric chemistry and science-based archaeology. The Economic and Social Research Council will take the lead in setting up and running a joint committee on the management of innovation, which will have the active participation of all the other councils. In making these changes, I have followed the advice, above all, of Sir David Phillips, the retiring chiarman of ABRC and one of the finest of our post-war public servants in the administration of science.
From 1 April, all councils will have a part-time chairman, selected with a view to securing representation for research users and to bringing in relevant industrial or commercial experience. I am pleased to say that we have very good people for these roles.
Sir David Plastow of Inchcape plc will continue as chairman of the Medical Research Council, and Sir Alistair Grant of the Argyll group, who is the current chairman of AFRC, will become the BBSRC's first part-time chairman. Mr. Robert Malpas of the Cookson group took up the chairmanship of the Natural Environment Research Council last year. AT EPSRC we shall have British


Telecom's Dr. Alan Rudge, and at PPARC Dr. Peter Williams of Oxford Instruments. I shall announce the part-time chairman of ESRC shortly.
It is very encouraging for the future of science and engineering in this country that such a strong team of top-flight people from industry and commerce is in place and that our leading science-based firms have shown themselves willing to support the new system in this most important respect.
We are also assembling a very powerful team of chief executives. Sir Dai Rees FRS carries on at MRC. Professor Tom Blundell FRS will move from AFRC to BBSRC. Vacant posts are being tilled through open competition. Professor John Krebs FRS will be chief executive of NERC from 1 April, and in the case of PPARC we have Professor Ken Pounds FRS.
The White Paper on science and technology has been widely welcomed in the scientific and industrial communities. At lunch time today we heard from Lord Flowers a generous tribute to that document. We took a strategic look at what scientific research and post-graduate training should be funded, and we have resolved to build on existing strengths to create a closer and more systematic partnership between the science and engineering base and industry and commerce.
The creation of the new research councils is a key step in that process. Accordingly, I commend to the House the draft orders, which enable the next building blocks of our strategy to be put in place.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I begin with the admission that prior to the debate I had not heard of Megalab UK, but I had the good fortune to be given the Cabinet Office handout. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who never knowingly understates his exploits, described it in a byline as "the biggest experiment in the world". Underneath were the words, "The search for the mass experiment". Unfortunately, in the course of his long speech, he did not tell us what it was and the mind boggles as to what he was thinking of. Perhaps it is a lie detector for the Scott inquiry, perhaps the manufacture of a bullet-proof vest for the Prime Minister, which would certainly come in useful, or even the discovery of a definition of "back to basics". Perhaps what the right hon. Gentleman really had in mind when he used the words "mass experiment" is something that we all want—a general election as soon as possible.
I can at least share the right hon. Gentleman's surprise that we are debating three relatively non-controversial orders on the Floor of the House at peak time for three and a half hours. I agree that there are apparently no limits to the perversities of business management in this place. However, we have the unaccustomed opportunity to debate what we all agree is a key issue for the future of this country but which is rarely given the political attention that it deserves. I refer, of course, to the role of research in Britain's science base. In that context, let me say immediately that we would not wish to dispute the principle of the establishment of the three research councils, but some questions still need to be answered. Although I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he answered them.
First, the Science and Engineering Research Council has been split into the Engineering and Physical Sciences

Research Council and PPARC, or the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council because, in the past, currency fluctuations affecting foreign commitments of the latter side, such as those involving CERN or the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, have severely squeezed the budget of the former side. Now that the split has been made, how will the PPARC budget be guaranteed against excessive fluctuations in sterling? Two years ago, Ministers had a ready answer and said that the problem would be cured by the exchange rate mechanism, but that fell apart.
Secondly, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council is to replace the Agriculture and Food Research Council. The new emphasis on biotechnology, genetics and other abstract theories sounds fine but the AFRC has historically had a mission to support farming efficiency and food safety. How can we be sure that those important roles will be protected in the priorities of the new organisation?
Thirdly, there is what I may perhaps refer to as the missing research council, the dog that did not bark in the night, or the one that the Government are not creating—the humanities research council. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that there is some support for that view from Conservative Members. Why has the right hon. Gentleman ignored the advice of the Economic and Social Research Council and the British Academy which conducted a joint study of the problem, chaired by Sir Brian Follett who is the vice-chancellor of Warwick university? As the House knows, the study concluded that a group was needed to protect research in humanities in British universities. I think that I am right in saying that the academy has been forced to establish its own pretend group, so why has the right hon. Gentleman omitted to set up one? Is it perhaps because it does not fit in with the Government's well-known economic market prejudices? If there is some other reason, we should like to know.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who has left the Chamber, mentioned the important subject of the role and accountability of the Director General of the Research Councils, Sir John Cadogan. He has been in post for a month only. It is still not clear what right he has to tell organisations with their own royal charters what to do. What will be his relationship with the heads of the research councils and with the chief scientific adviser at the Office of Science and Technology? The right hon. Gentleman was asked that question. He gave a smooth answer which, I think, conceals a problem of considerable overlap and potential tension, but we shall see what happens.
We know that Sir John Cadogan will not be the accounting officer for the science budget. He will not be the line manager for the heads of the research councils, but he will have, as was said, direct access to the right hon. Gentleman and he will not have to pass his advice on the science budget through the chief scientific adviser. Even so, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology was worried that he still might not be able to command sufficient authority; the right hon. Gentleman did not mention that. It suggested, therefore, that he should be given the right to publish his advice to the right hon. Gentleman—I wonder what he feels about that—and the right himself to dispose of a slice of the science budget, perhaps 1 or 2 per cent. or something of that order, and
to touch the tiller of the science base in ways which could make an important difference over a number of years


—to use the Committee's phrase. That is an important proposal and we should like to know the Government's response to it.
In contrast, the Opposition argue that to entrench the director general's authority in that way could risk vesting too much control in OST or the Office of Public Service and Science when at the same time there was not enough control over other Departments' research and development. That is already a sector in which the discrepancy produces perverse effects on the overall output of Government research.
The right hon. Gentleman likes to tell us—he did so again today—that OST spending on the research councils is to be maintained, and in some ways increased, during the next two years. What he does not tell us is that the spending on research by other Departments will decrease for the second year in succession. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for example, has already announced a 6 per cent. cut in its research budget and other Departments are announcing reductions. If we consider the situation overall during the next three years, the Government will cut their spending on science by more than £400 million.
According to the latest issue of their "Annual Review of Government-funded Research and Development" in 1993, the Government spent £5·6 billion on science in 1991. By 1995, that will have decreased to £5·2 billion. Contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's assurances, or in addition to those assurances about protecting his own research council budgets, it is one of the great tragedies of the recession that Government Departments have responded to the general call for spending cuts by targeting their research budgets. In spite of all the fine words in the White Paper, the Government, when it comes to the economic pinch, do not believe in investing in research.
The annual review also shows that, of the G7 leading industrial countries, only Britain and Germany cut their research in 1991. As a percentage of gross domestic product, Britain spent 2·19 per cent. on research in 1990 and only 2·08 per cent. in 1991, which is the latest year for which we have the figures.
I am fully aware that the Government argue that they spend on R and D an amount that is comparable with the amounts spent by other members of the G7 overall, but that is because the United Kingdom's figure is inflated by unduly high military R and D expenditure. If one combines the comparison to civil research and development—that is basically what we are discussing today—Britain spends little more than half what Germany and France spend. That telling statistic is mapped clearly in that excellent report.
As for civil R and D—I am now referring to the dual support system—Britain's research council budgets have to be substantially supplemented by the higher education funding councils, and it is precisely there that the resource switch into teaching caused by the pressures of student numbers and cuts in Government funding has put the greatest squeeze on research budgets. That is the development that has had the sharpest impact on university research. Moreover, the Government also plan to shed thousands of scientific staff over the next few years. By 1995 the number of people employed by the Government in research is forecast to fall by about 6,00—16 per cent.
That is not the only source of insecurity among the scientific community. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned again today that the future of up to 30 research council institutes was being sketched out by a panel of so-called efficiency experts who had been sent around the country looking for candidates for privatisation—or, as we learnt today, if not privatisation, then contractorisation or some other model. The right hon. Gentleman asked: can we afford to have the wrong structures? I ask: can we afford to have the constant undermining of professional morale involved in uprooting the institutes for such purposes?
There is also a real fear in the scientific community that long-term research, and research that is not commercially profitable, will gradually be phased out. I know that that is a sensitive area and that the Government deny the possibility, but one must ask what is meant by a switch towards wealth creation. What exactly are the Government trying to achieve? Fears are generated by such language. One might conclude that that atmosphere is hardly likely to be conducive to the right hon. Gentleman's admirable desire for a partnership, which we would endorse, between science, the Government and industry.
Indeed, that whole idea was roundly attacked by the House of Lords Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was somewhat selective in his references to its report. Yes, much of the White Paper is applauded in it, but there is much criticism, too. In this case, the ground was that Britain's traditional scientific strengths could be undermined. Those are not my words but those of the House of Lords Select Committee, which said that the right hon. Gentleman's "predilection for wealth creation"—

Mr. Waldegrave: The words that the hon. Gentleman has quoted are not those of the Select Committee but come from the account in the New Scientist. I had a word with Lord Flowers at lunch, and he authorised me to say that the account in Nature is much more accurate in that matter than the account in the New Scientist.

Mr. Meacher: I am glad to hear that, but I am not entirely satisfied. We would still like to know exactly what is meant by the right hon. Gentleman's predilection for wealth creation. In what precise ways does he expect to change the direction and funding of research budgets? Exactly how will that affect what happens on the ground? There is a certain mysticism about the idea, and that is a source of considerable concern.
The Lords Select Committee says that if universities and research councils are forced to spend more of their scarce funds on research for industry, in the long term that would be bad for science, and bad for industry too. The Committee insists, rightly, that the needs of user communities should be interpreted in the broadest fashion. The whole idea should not be confined to the short-term need for answers to specific questions. If companies want that, they can perfectly well get it for themselves, from their own laboratories, or they can pay for it if they need to use the science base.
The Select Committee continues—I quote this passage because I agree with it—[Laughter.] Let me put that another way. The passage expresses a view which I share, which I am glad to see strongly and eloquently expressed by the Lords Select Committee:
The priorities for the Science Base ought to be longer-term needs".


It is precisely that feeling that causes ripples of uncertainty when we hear phrases such as "wealth creation". Is that really a longer-term need, or will it be translated in a very different way? The report says that the priorities should be
longer-term needs, for a resource of fundamental knowledge and a source of researchers trained to international standards.
That is absolutely right.
Indeed, there must be real concern about whether basic and fundamental research in mathematics, physics and chemistry is being put at risk by the shift towards wealth creation. Such research is also threatened by another change that the Government are making, to which the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North referred—the abolition of the Science and Engineering Research Council. One of that body's predecessor's functions was to fund research that fell in the gaps between other councils. That responsibility will cease to exist when SERC is wound up in April. Some researchers can then expect to find that no council will fund their worthwhile research. That is the risk.
The Minister's view is that the director general will be concerned with flexibility and with filling gaps. We shall have to see, but there certainly is a problem. I suppose that the Minister may reply that if such work falls outside the new overview—I believe that he prefers that terminology to the word "strategy"—it has no place in his national framework. However, any suggestion of a top-down approach is widely seen as running counter to the essence of scientific research, which depends heavily on the enthusiasm and inspiration of individuals.
The Lords Select Committee was well aware of that, saying:
If the Government's new strategy for the Science Base is so directive that it leaves no space for a keen young scientist with a new idea, then it will defeat its own object, by starving the Science Base at its roots.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be nodding; how far is he really aware of that danger? How far does he intend to press the strategic emphasis on wealth creation? That is probably the single most important question that we want answered in the debate.
The uncertainty, and the reason why we are so concerned about it, is illustrated by the technology foresight programme. The Minister is right to say that the OST may see that as a long-term affair, with programmes looking up to 15 years ahead, and only loosely connected with current spending plans. However, the Department of Trade and Industry sees it in a different light, as directing funding for research in the near future. That is a serious problem, because the right hon. Gentleman has failed to win over his ministerial colleagues to an agreed Government strategy. He continues to influence science only via OST funding, with no remit whatever over other departmental expenditure. The Department of Trade and Industry has just announced that it is to scrap the post of chief scientist, without the chief scientific adviser in the OST being given any authority over the science spending plans of other Departments, such as the DTI. So much for the Government's commitment to science. The interdepartmental confusion of objectives is a major serious flaw in their strategy.
There is at least one good thing to be said for the right hon. Gentleman's latest plans—I am sure that he will be relieved to hear me say that. At least he is now backing away from his daft idea of reducing the number of PhDs, by insisting that all postgraduate students must take a master's degree first. He should be far more concerned about the lack of a proper academic career structure,

because nearly half of the United Kingdom academic research scientists are now on short-term contracts running for less than three years. When those contracts run out, often they cannot get further jobs, and they leave research altogether.
The science base of the country is, as we all agree, an absolutely key national resource. It is also one which, sadly, has declined and has not been nurtured to the extent that it deserves. I think that I am right in saying that, in the 1950s, King's college, Cambridge displayed more Nobel prize winners than the whole of France.

Mr. Waldegrave: It was not King's college.

Mr. Meacher: It may have been King's or it may have been another university. I readily accept that the right hon. Gentleman has more knowledge than me on that matter. One Cambridge college had more Nobel prize winners than the whole country of one of our major industrial competitors. Virtually no Nobel prizes have been awarded to British scientists working in Britain since 1978. That is a clear mark of our decline and it is matched by the plummeting of the United Kingdom in the science citation index in the 1980s.
The orders may well set out a new structure for the research councils, but I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Waldegrave: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I suppose so.

Mr. Waldegrave: Have not we plummeted from second place to second place in the citation index?

Mr. Meacher: It is well below second place, but I shall check on that. Whereas we were only just behind the United States, we have now fallen a long way behind. I believe that we have been overtaken by other countries. The right hon. Gentleman is far from producing a convincing strategy which will reverse that sharp decline and, until that science base is strengthened, the future of our manufacturing industry and the standard of living of our people will not be securely underpinned.

Sir Giles Shaw: I welcome the motions, although I am rather saddened that there is not a larger attendance to debate matters affecting science, technology, innovation and the entire creative output of British industry. I am saddened even further that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now departs. There are six members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology present and I shall therefore be brief in the hope that all of them will be able to present their views.
I welcome the creation of the new research councils. I also welcome what the Chancellor said about funding. Even if the decisions taken in November implied that there might be a modest increase in funding for science, the announcement is virtually in line with inflation and maintains the status quo. That is not unreasonable in such difficult times.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it is a little sad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor saw fit not to publish the distribution of the money between the research councils before the debate or to make them known during the debate. If he had done so, that would have allowed us to discuss how the distribution of the


funding would affect the three councils that we are discussing and the others in the group. However, that is a matter of small import against the long-term importance of what is being debated today.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) raised a number of queries as to whether the council will have a significant long-term and stable interest in the science sector and the innovative technology that must be drawn out of the science base. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will know that it is essential in financing, whether of the councils or of the science base as a whole, that we arrange to have a stable cash flow. That cash may increase, but if we are to maintain the necessary rhythm of science development in each of the sectors covered by the councils, to begin decreasing the expenditure that is fed to those councils in their new form would cause difficulties.
The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council is the core issue on which I wish to spend most of my time. As Sir William Barlow of the Royal Academy of Engineering says:
Of the new councils the ESPRC, as reflected in its mission statement, probably has the most important role.
I endorse that because we have been looking for a way to isolate such research from our major competitors and from those from whom it currently requires a transfusion of scientific endeavour, but also at least to give the council a remit that is related to the basic requirements of manufacturing. In that case, the Royal Academy of Engineering is right to regard it as the most important council and that is no doubt why Sir William Barlow also says:
We warmly welcome the establishment of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. We hope that this will reinforce the importance of engineering in industrial wealth creation.
That is one of the themes that has engaged the Select Committee on Science and Technology during its current research. There should be a requirement to ensure that in Britain there is not only a deep and clear commitment to scientific endeavour that has the possibility of lifting our industrial base and of lifting the industrial culture but a recognition of engineering and the development of engineering as crucial elements that affect out competitiveness and success as an economic nation and the success of our academic institutions as a source of excellence. In that cause, I believe that the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council will play an important role and I hope that we see that developed soon.
One of the objects of the council, set out in the order, is that it has
to provide advice, disseminate knowledge, and promote public understanding in the fields of engineering and the physical sciences.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Director General of the Research Councils, when he is fully acquanted with his new remit, will consider the dissemination of knowledge among British industry as a crucial issue. That was patently exposed when examining witnesses in Committee. It contrasts massively with the knowledge, integration and acceptance of innovation in the other economies against which we are able to meassure ourselves, albeit in a peripheral sense.
In Germany, right down to small and medium-size enterprises, the knowledge of, the need for, and the ability

to inform and develop, innovation is widespread. It is equally true in Japan, although our own research did not show many such enterprises there. However, we know that all Japanese industry is widely aware of what technology means and how to get it, to use it and to profit by it.
In Britain there is a growing gap. If we are to improve the importance of our manufacturing and our manufacturing base, and if the objects of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council are to be fully met, we must find ways in which to stimulate the spread of information on technology and innovation among small companies. Our economy will return to growth through the seedcorn of small companies—such as those in the science parks of Cambridge—that are willing to innovate and, in many cases, have ideas how they can achieve it, but perhaps lack contact with the engineering that would enable them to succeed, and through funding. We should not rely on massive investments made by the GECs of this world.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main problems that our small and medium-sized enterprises face, especially those in Cambridge, is not so much their contact with the science base, but their difficulty in getting funds for their research and development efforts?

Sir Giles Shaw: The hon. Lady is quite right, that was the case. To rely on the clearing banks in their wisdom is insufficient to ensure that many smaller companies succeed in the competitive world in which they endeavour.
The establishment of the councils is a potent part of the new look that the Office of Science and Technology is giving to the arrangements within which science and, one hopes, innovation and technology can flourish. I welcome the fact that we shall shortly be having the first forward look—as I understand it, in April. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy that another debate should be held on that issue. That will allow us to have the next phase of our discussion on the development of the new OST plans as they unfold.
We must consider the question of efficiency and the success of the councils in fulfilling the roles that we all hope that they will fulfil. I believe that the efficiency and success of those councils and others will depend on how clearly they are targeted to the national interest. I do not share the concern of the hon. Member for Oldham, West about the importance of defining what they do at this stage, although the hon. Gentleman will certainly have a point if we later find that there is overlap and confusion rather than serious targeting of national effort and resources. We are focusing important national resources in the three separate directions for national ends.
I trust that—through either the mechanism of the Director General of the Research Councils or the influence of the chief scientific adviser or the Chancellor himself —we can have a clear and long-term range of vision statements that will lead to a proper sense of national priorities. It is that above all that distinguishes the post of Minister for Science in other Governments from the arrangements that we have here. As my right hon. Friend knows, I hope that, in due course, we shall have a fully fledged Minister for Science with the kind of national priorities established—through forward look, technological foresight or whatever—to enable a real relationship to


be established and between research councils and central Government. We need to identify those priorities and the role of the OST must be such that they can develop.
I note that paragraph 3.28 at page 33 of the White Paper "Realising our Potential" lists among the director general's responsibilities
ensuring that Councils work together to achieve a common approach and take advantage of the possibilities for improved efficiency through joint working".
I welcome that. I hope that it will mean that the difficulties of overlap and the problems of establishing a co-ordinated and clear set of priorities can be overcome, to enable the councils to be efficient rather than riven with academic bickering or scientific confusion—both of which we can do without with the new look of science and endeavour that my right hon. Friend is introducing.
It is essential that our research and technological policies should be fashioned by consent—between Government and industry, the main consumers of scientific endeavour; between Government and the academic and scientific establishments; and between the OST and other Departments such as the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence. The hon. Member for Oldham, West was perfectly right to point to the fact that that is an important missing element in the DST's current remit. I hope that it will not be too long before that omission is rectified and before co-ordinated scientific policy and priorities are assumed right across the board —wherever publicly funded national scientific endeavour is taking place.
The largest potential problems and the largest potential benefits are to be found in research for military purposes. I must acknowledge that much MOD research has massive spin-off into civilian applications and wider applications in British industry. We must also recognise, however, the large number of smaller firms and contractors and sub-contractors within the defence industry, which tend to bear the brunt of reductions when changes in defence planning or substantial reductions in defence needs occur. We must ensure that those high-tech smaller companies have access to civilian opportunities and assistance if necessary to establish themselves in other markets. We must also consider the wider implication of the transfer of technology and research, especially from defence to civil uses. That should be one of the DST's priorities in due course.
The research councils are essential vehicles for the creation of new wealth, although I accept that they must not be seen as in hock to industrial need. Let us say that wealth creation is essential for economic growth and then say that the councils should become the engines of economic growth. They should provide centres of excellence and quality and should ensure—if they are adequately funded and correctly targeted—that their contribution as a whole improves the lives of all our fellow citizens. The three new councils are now in place. I am sure that the House will wish them well in the new order of things in which research and technology, inspired by the OST' s development and by the Government, will surely be one of the main objectives of public policy for many years ahead.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Those called early in the debate have a duty to be succinct.
First, I want to ask a question on the subject on which I interrupted the Minister: what is the hitch about the appointment of the chief executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council? Why is that bill so difficult to fill? I understand that a number of distinguished academics have been interviewed, but that the result of the interviews was not satisfactory. So who exactly are the Government looking for? Is it someone different from the kind of heavyweight academic who most of us thought would fill the position of chief executive? There may be a perfectly satisfactory answer to that question, but I put it none the less.
Secondly, on the subject of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, may I air a problem that greatly concerns my colleagues on the Biological Sciences Advisory Committee of the University of Edinburgh? I refer to the sticky question of work on animals. Twenty or 30 years ago, it was taken as axiomatic that there would be work on animals in school and undergraduate classes. Now there is a different attitude —that the work can be done using computers. At its recent world meeting in Glasgow—my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) was there—the Institute of Physiologists made it very clear that work on instrumentation, however sophisticated, is really no substitute for practice on animals. Are there Government guidelines on that, or is everything so difficult in view of the animal rights lobbies and the general climate of opinion in which we are now operating? I do not know the answer to that question, but it is a nettle that will have to be grasped.
Finally, on the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, I should like to ask two questions.
First, what is the attitude to the funding of CERN, the European nuclear research centre? I hope that there will be no drawing back from our international obligations. The closure decisions in California and elsewhere have greatly hurt distinguished American scientists. Some of us hope sincerely that the opportunity will be seized—on terms of dignity and in no way berating them—to say to the Americans, "At this moment the western world has a real opportunity to co-operate on super-colliders. Act with us on an equal basis. That does not refect on science programmes in the United States. Can we not do this important work on particle physics together?" What are the Government saying to the United States Government? Is the matter being urgently tackled?
I should like to return to the issue of the JET project, on which I interrupted the Minister. There are many responsibilities for JET, but he said, "Well, it was not our Department." In that case, whose Department is it? I should like to put on the record the contents of a letter sent to me by the Prime Minister, dated 1 February 1994. It states:
Thank you for your letter of 14 December, in which you asked about the handling of any decision to extend JET after 1996.
The JET Project is technically a Joint Undertaking under the Euratom treaty. Any extension would require an amendment to the terms of the JET Statutes, and would need to be agreed by the Council of Ministers, probably by qualified majority. This was the procedure followed under previous extensions.


There has been informal discussion within Europe of the idea of a further extension, but no formal proposal has yet been tabled.
Do they have a formal proposal in mind? The letter continues:
Some people beleive that closure of JET in 1996 would be premature, given that it could continue to do good scientific work on the unresolved problems relating to the operation of JET-style fusion machines, and hence of the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project. Others believe that JET should close in 1996 as planned, so that funding can be made available to other projects. (JET accounts for roughly half of the Commission's current annual spending of about 200 mecu on fusion.)
So far as the substance of this issue is concerned, we have an open mind on extension, and we are prepared to look at the question on its merits. In considering any proposal, we shall be concerned to ensure that its scientific value is commensurate with the costs involved.
I passionately believe that JET should continue. I have been to Culham and have been involved in the project ever since, as a Member of the European Parliament, my colleagues and I nagged Guido Bruner, who was then European Commissioner, to send JET to Culham rather than to Ispra or to the Munich region.
I argue that the prize is high. If fusion can be developed, it will provide energy without undesirable environmental consequences.
The chances of achieving success are zero if the money is cut off now. The chances are low if funding continues at the present level. There is an argument for extended funding of JET. To combine with the United States Tokamak project, and thereby devote more skills to a common end, is a sensible policy.
I promised to be brief. Those were the questions that I wanted to put to the House.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I begin by picking up on the remarks that were made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Culham. Although I do not represent Culham, which is on the other side of the river from my constituency, I represent many of the scientists who work on the JET project.
The Government should realise that, when JET was set up, a grave injustice was done to British employees. I must say, without wishing to make a party political point, that the Minister responsible for that decision was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
That injustice has been long standing and it is coming to a head in a combination of industrial action, protests and court cases brought by employees of JET and pressure being applied by the European Parliament through its Budgets Committee. I have had extensive correspondence with Ministers who have responsibility for energy in the Department of Trade and Industry, the lead Ministry. The Government will have to recognise that this problem needs to be sorted out and canot be a pass-the-parcel operation between AEA Technology, the Department of Trade and Industry's energy department, the European Commission and the European Parliament. I gently suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Office of Public Service and Science, with its overall remit for science, has a responsibility in this matter. I hope that it will assume that responsibility.
I welcome the orders and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on reaching this important stage in the implementation of his vision for science policy. I would like to join him in the thanks that he has extended to Sir David Phillips, who is retiring from Government service and who has acted as the midwife for the new research councils. That is only the last act in a long and distinguished career in the service of Government science. Sir David Phillips is a distinguished scientist and all hon. Members will wish him well as he returns to his academic work.
I welcome Sir John Cadogan, Sir David Phillips' successor, to his new role as Director General for the Research Councils. He has a hard act to follow after Sir David Phillips' distinguished chairmanship of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.
I welcome the new structure for the research councils, but I join the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the Opposition spokesman, in regretting the absence of an order to establish a new research council for the humanities. The proposal for such a research council, which was supported by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and, indeed, by me at the OPSS, was not given the serious attention and consideration that it merited by the Department for Education, not least in the light of the strength and weight of the support that the proposal received from the British Academy and from universities. Sir Brian Follett, who comes from outside the humanities community, made a particularly notable contribution to thinking through the proposal for a new humanities research council.
I know that Ministers in the Department for Education have attempted to make up, in some small measure, for their mistaken rejection of the proposal and I hope that the new arrangements that they have negotiated with the British Academy will help to deal with at least a few of the problems that a humanities research council would have addressed. There are serious implications for good scholars in the humanities in some of the universities, where overall research performance is relatively less impressive and which are losing research funding from the higher education funding councils.
The moral of this story, as of so many in government, is that Ministers must take the trouble to listen to what is being said to them by serious and informed people who know what they are talking about. It should be obvious to Conservative Ministers that having the power and the right to decide is not always the same thing as knowing best.
I do not include my right hon. Friend the Minister in my strictures. His remarks today about the arm's-length principle showed that he has a proper sense of these matters. Today, he announced some welcome initiatives and he has explained clearly his philosophy of promoting a greater convergence between academic science and technological applications. All the same, I know that he will not take it amiss if I underline his point that there is value in the decentralised, pluralistic approach that is embodied in the research council tradition, which goes back to the establishment of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research just after the first world war.
The Science and Technology Act 1965 empowers the Minister to
specify the objects, or principal objects
of a research council. That power has now been expanded into a ministerial promulgation of mission statements for research councils. At the same time, the independent


Advisory Board for the Research Councils, which stood between the Minister and research councils, has been abolished and replaced by a ministerial adviser. I hope that those changes will bring about improvements, but my right hon. Friend knows that, for better or for worse, they represent a considerable shift of power to Ministers and officials. Not only the hon. Member for Oldham, West but all hon. Members will look with close interest at the first results of the technology foresight arrangements as they are brought to bear on the exercise of the new powers.
The Government must remember that a wisdom underlies the limits that the 1965 Act sets on ministerial powers and that it could he at risk in the hands of a less careful and less scrupulous Minister. That wisdom recognises that knowledge is best expanded and increased in conditions of academic self-government and intellectual autonomy.
There are intrinsic features of academic inquiry connected with the inherent unpredictability of its outcomes which make it peculiarly unsuitable for the close attentions of politicians and planners. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would like to ask the new Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council to carry out some research into how it is possible, by excessive and inappropriate attentions, to kill the geese which lay the golden eggs.
A crucial aspect of the future of the research councils, which is not dealt with by the orders, concerns the application to them of the currently fashionable Whitehall doctrine—I will not for the moment call it a dogma—which insists on the separation, in as many areas of government work as possible, of purchasers from providers. On the whole, that is a sound doctrine, but, like all doctrines of government, it must always be pursued with discretion and with close attention to consequences.
One possible consequence of regarding the research councils as purchasers of research, detached from the provision of research—it would be very serious if it came to pass—was explored in the recent House of Lords report on priorities for the science base. Paragraph 4.73 of the report states:
The SERC is already funding work conducted in the institutes of other Councils; its successors are now obliged, in Sir Mark's view, to receive applications from Government research laboratories, and other laboratories of a public nature including privatised ones, though probably not from the out-and-out private sector. The DTI favours this development. Sir Mark accepts the consequence that, overall, the universities are bound to get less.
The conclusion of the House of Lords report, at paragraph 4.86, states:
In this climate, it would be the final straw if the Science Base were forced to share the Science Budget with the private or semi-private sector … It might be possible to 'buy' research more cheaply from institutions without the university overheads relating to teaching and research training; but this would be an altogether false economy, and would further undermine the capacity of the Science Base".
I agree with the House of Lords report on that point, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, will make clear the Government's position on it.
I should like to say a few words about the Rutherford Appleton laboratory, which is an important constituency interest for me and a vital national and international scientific resource. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know how thoroughly the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General do their work, which is why I am delighted to have the National

Audit Office's positive report which it has just published on the Rutherford Appleton laboratory. Paragraph 11, one of its overall conclusions, states:
The very positive response to the National Audit Office survey demonstrates that to a great extent the facilities and services provided by the Laboratory meet the needs of their users, and that they are highly valued by most users.
I have come to know the Rutherford Appleton laboratory very well over the past 10 years as its Member of Parliament, and indeed over the previous four years as its Member in the European Parliament. It offers wide coverage of science and engineering matters, such as materials science, earth observation, information technology, energy research, astronomy and particle physics, and supercomputing. According to the Frascati definitions, 30 per cent. of its work is classified as basic, 50 per cent. is applied strategic work and 20 per cent. is applied specific work.
The laboratory operates world-class facilities supporting university research; it supports about 8,500 users, the majority being researchers from British universities; its staff have won many prizes; and it has close links with the academic community. In 1992, it also had contracts or agreements with 100 industrial companies, most of them involving technology transfer. It is a very significant operation.
I know that my right hon. Friend is fully alive to the importance of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory and that he is determined to safeguard its future. He showed that in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall). At the moment, the future of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory is slightly uncertain —I put it no higher than that—as a consequence of the abolition of its owner and sponsoring organisation, SERC. As has been said, a wide range of options are being considered for the future of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory, and they are all premised on an acknowledgement of its excellence and its value for money.
At this stage, I do not wish to press any particular option, but I shall mention three considerations which the Government should bear in mind. First, the Rutherford Appleton laboratory is big enough and strong enough to stand on its own as a supplier of research services to a wide range of users, so I hope that it will be accorded substantial self-management as a unified entity.
Secondly, the importance of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory as a national and international scientific asset should be reflected in the way in which its users and customers relate to it. The Government have a role to ensure that that occurs. One of the great problems of the purchaser-provider split is that purchasers might turn out to be extremely piecemeal and short term in their thinking. There is evidence that Departments are often in that mode. The Government must address that problem right across the board in relation to the purchaser-provider split.
The long-term future of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory as a centre of scientific excellence—like that of many other great institutions that are caught up in the new purchaser-provider philosophy—must be safeguarded by the purchasing decisions of its principal users. In that connection, I am not at all impressed by the recent decision of the expiring SERC on the location, not at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory but elsewhere, of important new computer facilities.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of the abolition of the SERC and the


emergence of a stand-alone Rutherford Appleton laboratory to involve leading research universities more closely in the overall direction of the laboratory. Such arrangements work very well in the United States in relation to significant research laboratories. They would help to ensure that the customers for Rutherford Appleton laboratory, most of them necessarily in universities, are kept closely in touch with the effects of their purchasing decisions on the Rutherford Appleton laboratory as a research provider. There would also be a spin-off benefit of providing a focus for the close collaboration of our leading research universities, which must work hard to strengthen their voice and influence in today's difficult research policy environment.
The orders set up a range of new bodies whose work might be somewhat esoteric by parliamentary standards —perhaps that is reflected in hon. Members' attendance —but which is crucial for the future well-being of Britain. I am sure that the whole House will wish them and their new members and officials all success in the important and difficult tasks that they face.

Mr. Nigel Jones: I declare an interest in ICL computers.
The Liberal Democrats support the draft orders, although we share the concerns—we would like answers to them—that were expressed clearly by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). For almost 15 years, we have had a Government who, according to Nature of 30 September 1993, have
dealt insensitively, even foolishly, with British science, substituting for what previously have been unfounded optimism a general demoralisation.
One of the reasons I am a Member of this House is that, after spending more than 20 years in the information technology industry, I could see the way in which other countries were catching up with and overtaking Britain in their standards of living.

Mr. Roger Knapman: As the hon. Member is a regular reader of Nature and has quoted its September edition, he will be aware that, more recently, in the January edition, it comments:
The Government's White Paper on science and technology proved … to be a turning point in the country's approach to the organisation of science. It was seen as an exclusive acknowledgement of the practical importance of research in a competitive global economy.
The Government are possibly doing a little better than the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Jones: I have read that article as well as the one from which I quoted. I hope that the White Paper is a turning point in this country's treatment of science.
As I explained, I am in the House because I was aware that other countries were overtaking Britain. They did that by investing not short term but long term, researching and developing products that would produce tangible results not immediately but in five, 10 or 15 years or even further ahead. If Britain is to survive as a modern industrial nation whose people enjoy a high standard of living, we too must invest, and the research councils have a role in making sure that the research is well targeted.
Whole swathes of our industry are contracting. The nation must identify some potential winners and invest in

them now for the wealth that they will create in future. I welcome the orders, because reorganising the research councils along the lines that have been suggested should help to give a sharper focus on areas of potential wealth creation.
I welcome the Minister's efforts to listen positively to the wishes of people in science. I also welcome the serious way in which he approached this important subject without the usual party bickering that brings us into such disrepute with people outside. The Minister has a monumental task, because his colleagues do not seem to take science and research and development, and especially their funding, as seriously as they should.
It cannot be stressed often enough that, for the future wealth of the nation, science policy must be high on the Government's agenda. Without properly funded research, even more time will be spent in the House debating—or, perhaps, because of guillotine motions, not debating—further cuts in the social programmes on health, education, the police and social services.
I do not dispute the objectives of the research councils as outlined in the orders. Who could argue against the promotion and support of high quality basic research, the advancement of knowledge and technology and the promotion of public understanding of science? Such objectives must be right, but I fear that they may turn out to be daydreams in terms of reality and the amount of money that the Government are prepared to commit to the research councils.
I am also concerned about the Government's overriding emphasis on wealth creation. It is intrinsically right as a goal that scientists should be aware that, without wealth creation, there would be no funds for their work. However, I question the White Paper's overriding statement that research grants should be linked to wealth creation. Are those members of the research community who fail to demonstrate a potential for wealth creation in their field in 1994 to be automatically starved of all resources in 1995? That would not be sensible.
Will research grant applications be tied to the rigid goals of wealth creation? Is it not the nature of such an area that basic research often needs to be done without a specified profit margin? To back that argument, I call upon a notable scientist, no less a person than the noble Baroness Thatcher, who once said:
Transistors were not discovered by the entertainment industry seeking new ways of marketing pop music, but rather by people working on wave mechanics and solid-state physics".
I fear that the Government may put short-term financial issues before the long-term goal of providing for Britain an adequate research base to maintain and improve our quality of life.
One of the problems is a lack of understanding by Ministers about the nature of research. Research is necessary not just to produce a more sophisticated television set, which is a wealth-creating achievement: it is also vital to learn about problem solving itself. Many of the skills that are learned in research are those of identifying and better understanding problems—providing basic knowledge to be used in the future. Further, a potential wealth-creating area may be identified, but will there be the resources to make anything of it?
One key area, regarded by some as likely to have bigger world market potential than information technology and communications combined, is biotechnology. Some hon. Members may have seen Dr. Chris Evans of Chiroscience


in "The Money Programme" on BBC2 last Sunday bemoaning the fact that Britain was likely to miss the biotechnology revolution because research and venture capital were so difficult to get. I welcome the new research council that will be devoted to biotechnology, and I hope that it will be successful.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House are seriously concerned about advances in genetic engineering. That is why it is vital for the Government to realise that scientific research is not carried out for its own sake. Once proven, and in certain areas approved by Parliament, it should permeate beyond the remit of the Minister to the Departments of Trade and Industry and of Health, and the Ministry of Agriculture.
When he commented on the White Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pinpointed the problem when he said:
We have seen no clear leadership; rather it has been a matter of laissez faire, in the sense of 'by default'".
As all hon. Members know, the reality is that funding could be limitless.
I am sure that between them the new research councils will find projects worthy of investment that will far outstrip the budget of any of the parties in the House. But there is a shortfall now, and it is damaging Britain's future. That is why, in our autumn Budget submission, the Liberal Democrats proposed an immediate injection of £400 million into science policy and a return to spending of 0·35 per cent. of GDP on the science base, a percentage that the Government sadly let lapse to 0·28 per cent. between 1979 and 1991. We are committed to raising investment over five years to 0·4 per cent. of GDP, which is in line with the percentage invested by Britain's major competitors.
The Minister announced additional support of £15·5 million. That is welcome, but it is not enough. Although broadly welcoming the White Paper "Realising our Potential", the science community is fed up with Government indecision and time wasting.
The president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, Sir William Barlow, about whom we have heard and who was present at the lunch today at which the Prime Minister spoke about science, sent a letter to hon. Members this week. In it, he particularly welcomes the establishment of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. However, Sir William states:
It is vital that after its separation from Astronomy and Particle Physics and from Biology and Biotechnology it does not simply remain the rump of the SERC. The Council has a new mission and this must be widely recognised and respected".
William is right, and his letter also states:
Following the reorganisation of the Research Councils and the redistribution of responsibilities there should follow a period where they are able to pursue their missions without excessive interference or change".
As an example of ill-thought-out interference by the Government, I cite the example of physics degrees. David Ko, a lecturer in the department of physics at Oxford university, says that undergraduate degrees do not allow for critical analysis of problems, that that is achieved at postgraduate level. What is the Government's overall strategy for encouraging higher levels of research? Academia is faced with indecision and changing decisions by the Government.
For a physics degree, a three-year course does not allow a student to develop in-depth skills of research. That means that British graduates are not competitive in Europe where

the standard degree is to masters level. There is still considerable confusion and uncertainty in our universities about what will happen to physics degrees to bridge that gap. A four-year degree was accepted by the Department of Education, but the White Paper suggests a "three plus one" system.
It is ludicrous that universities are unable to specify in their prospectuses how long a student is likely to remain at university. It appears that the fourth year is to be funded by the research councils rather than by local authorities. Where will the money come from?
A report issued in November by the National Commission on Education stated that, since the Government do not intend to provide any more money for the revised research degrees, the number of students taking doctoral courses will inevitably fall. The orders are a help, a step forward, but we must value our scientists in the same way as scientists are valued in Germany, France, Japan, the United States and, increasingly, the Pacific basin.
I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, he will provide answers to some of the questions that have been raised. I wish him well in the task of persuading his colleagues of the importance of research in Britain. If, as I suspect, he is unable to persuade them to invest more now, it will become just another example of why Britain needs a fresh start, under a new Government.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate science, as science debates do not occur as often as many of us would like. Although we are debating the relative narrowness of orders setting up the new research councils, the debate gives some of us the chance to raise wider issues in the House.
I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the fact that we are meeting to discuss science today on the same day as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee's annual lunch. I am delighted to see the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), in his place for this important debate. He will know the great importance that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attaches to science and the need for the Government to play a positive part in the stimulation of scientific endeavour in Britain.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised the key bases for our scientific programme for the future: excellence, recognition of the contribution of science to the quality of life in Britain and the development of the prosperity of all this country's people. The framework for all this was created last year in the White Paper "Realising our Potential", and today we are putting another of the building blocks in place in creating the new research councils.
Hon. Members will be aware that five of the six research councils that will come into effect on 1 April are headquartered in my constituency in Swindon. I am therefore delighted to have the opportunity to make one or two points in the debate on behalf of many of my constituents in the scientific community. They, together with Sir John Cadogan, the new Director General of the Research Councils, whom I warmly welcome as a new arrival to this part of the scientific scene, will play the most vital role in the development of our scientific effort over the next few years.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) who said that the Government are failing in their long-term vision for science. Everything I have read on the subject in recent weeks and months suggests that, for the first time, the Government are trying to take a long-term view of the importance of science in Britain, and they should be commended for that.
I have four points to make on particular matters of concern to the scientific community within the research councils in my constituency. The first one may be a small point, but it is important to my constituents. It concerns the uncertainty that remains about the future pension arrangements for staff of the research councils.
I appreciate that the matter is very much under consideration, but I am sure that the Minister will understand that, as long as there is uncertainty, there is also some fear. I urge him, if he can, to give us some assurance at the end of the debate or, if he cannot, to ensure that staff are made aware of their future pension arrangements at the earliest possible opportunity. I am optimistic that the Minister will be able to say that there will be no detriment and no cause for concern among the staff, but the concern remains, and I hope that he will be able to address himself briefly to it before the end of the debate.
Secondly, I must mention the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). We are all concerned that, as yet, there is no appointment of a chief executive for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. I would not in any way suggest anything less than the paragon that the Secretary of State said he was looking for, if such a person is to be found, but I would stress that Dr. Alan Rudge, whose appointment I warmly welcome, is not expected to take up his position fully until August this year.
There is therefore a distinct possibility that, for the first four months of the new research council, there will be neither a part-time chairman nor a full-time chief executive in post. That raises some doubt about the confidence with which the new council can establish its direction and identity. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to give his best endeavours to an early resolution of that important issue.
Thirdly, I want to comment on the advantages that spring from the reorganisation. I warmly welcome the creation of the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. It is well placed to develop existing programmes, collaboration with industry, the CASE studentships, the teaching company scheme, innovative manufacturing and others. I have no doubt that the new council will carry forward the work of the Science and Engineering Research Council in those and other ways, and that that will be only to the benefit of industry and the scientific community.
Equally, I recognise the logic of the Natural Environment Research Council taking over responsibility for earth observation from space atmospheric chemistry and science-based archaeology, or carbon dating.
I am less sure about the prospects for the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. I am concerned that it may find difficulty in sustaining its flexibility of approach to various programmes in the face of certain future difficulties with currency fluctuations as they relate to the subscriptions to CERN and ESA. Those subscriptions are £55 million to CERN and £30 million to

the European Space Agency. The new research council, taken out of the body of SERC, has a total budget of £180 million, compared with £600 million for SERC.
While accepting the logic of the case made by my right hon. Friend that SERC had too wide a responsibility for research, I envisage the opposite problem occurring when more than half the budget of the PPARC will be dominated by those two subscriptions over which it has no control, in terms of its ability to achieve efficiencies of scale or any other method of controlling the costs.
If the Minister says that I am wrong in making that point, I will be delighted to hear him say so, but I fear that he will promise only to double and redouble his efforts with the Treasury in future and ensure that any fluctuations will not be prejudice other programmes under the remit of the PPARC.
My final point is in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). There is some uncertainty about the future of the laboratories at Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton. Neither needs support from right hon. and hon. Members in terms of the quality and excellence of their contribution to scientific effort in Britain, but they need us to speak up on their behalf in urging my right hon. Friend to ensure that whatever decisions are taken about their future are made soon.
There is uncertainty and concern among the staff of those two laboratories. If the Government introduce independent status, the staff will want to know that their jobs will be secure, their future will be bright and that the commitment to excellence that has always been achieved in those laboratories in the past will continue.
I welcome the clear mission statements for each of the research councils—three of which are covered by the orders that we are debating this afternoon—coupled with careful scrutiny of the systems and structures that have been put in place by the research councils until now. I have no doubt that that work will continue.
I welcome the maintenance of the present staff complement during this period of change. The publication of the White Paper brought further uncertainty. The Minister will remember that, when the White Paper was presented to the House last year, my first question concerned its implications for staff who are my constituents.
On that occasion, I was given an assurance that there would be no serious implications for staff, and I am delighted to be able to report to the House that that has been the case, and that staff are now aware to which research council they will be moving on 1 April and what their responsibilities will be. I welcome the honouring of that pledge made to me last year.
The new system of appointing part-time chairmen and full-time chief executives will be helpful. It is quite common in British industry, and it is an experiment well worth trying in the case of the research councils. Subject to the appointment of all those chairmen and chief executives —a point to which I have already referred—I have no doubt that the system will be successful in the future.
I particularly emphasise the need to preserve the commitment to basic science. I welcome the industry-based procedures that have been outlined today and in the White Paper, but I hope that we will never lose sight of the need for people to be able to mess around in a laboratory and do something that no one else thought possible. That is what I understand by basic science, and I hope that it will


always have a part to play in Britain's scientific effort. In that respect, I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's earlier remarks.
I appreciate that questions are raining in on the Minister from every direction during this debate, so he might find it necessary to answer them in some other forum than the House this afternoon, but I would find it helpful to know how he sees the future involvement of the research councils in the technology foresight exercise, which is of considerable importance to our future scientific effort and in which I hope that the research councils will be able to play the fullest part.
I have not yet said anything about the establishment of the new Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak on that matter on which he is an expert, so I shall simply say that I welcome the sensible combination of the Agricultural and Food Research Council and those elements of SERC involved with biotechnology and biological sciences to produce synergies which must be extremely valuable in future.
In that respect, I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham that it is right for us to find by every means possible the way forward to promote greater investment in biotechnology in Britain. This could be the latest hovercraft—Britain's latest missed opportunity, if we are not careful. I hope that, as a result of the setting up of the new research council, we shall not miss such opportunities in the future.
This debate has not involved any particular mention of the Natural Environment Research Council or the Economic and Social Research Council, to whose work in the past 25 years I pay tribute.
In particular, I want to say thank you to Professor Howard Newby, who has been at the head of the Economic and Social Research Council for the past few years and who will be leaving to become vice chancellor of Southampton university later this year. I declare an interest as one of the first to receive a grant from what was then the Social Sciences Research Council 25 years ago. I have therefore taken an interest in the work of the council ever since, and I wish it and Professor Newby well in the future.
Lastly, I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon of the new resources which have been made available for a variety of programmes within the scientific sphere and which come partly from efficiency savings. The fact that half the money is from new resources is also to be welcomed. It is important that the emphasis on new programmes should be on industry-led initiatives.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his stewardship of science in the past 21 months. We have made substantial progress in that direction under his leadership, and I have no doubt that, with the establishment of the new research councils on I April, that good work will continue in future.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The stark problem that faces us in Britain is our position vis-a-vis that of other countries. In the most recent year, Japanese industry registered 350,000 patents, one third of the world total, and the United Kingdom only one seventh; yet we know that we are a country of inventive genius because this century we have won 61 Nobel prizes, while Japan has scored just four.
The international situation in biotechnology has been described by the President of the Board of Trade as sobering, but many feel that it is desperate. The prizes are there. Biotechnology is relatively new and on the verge of an enormous expansion. Since 1980, 54 biotechnology companies have sprouted and they already employ a significant number of people—5,000. It is forecast that, by the year 2000, the world market for biotechnology will be worth between £30 billion and £60 billion a year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) raised one of the most serious problems ahead of us—the perception of the mass of the public. Unfortunately, many people see the spectre of mutant organisms stalking the countryside, a fear which has a good basis, although much of it is irrational. There already exists the mouse which has been specially bred to be sensitive to cancer and the pig, produced in the United States, which was meant to be larger than normal but which suffered from blindness, ulcers and arthritis. Such monsters, which many people consider to be similar to Frankenstein's monster, do exist. We must guard against possible great advances for humankind being held back by that perception.
My hon. Friend also referred to objections to the use of live animals in research. No substitute, such as computer models, is as good or as reliable for research purposes as a slaughtered animal. But there is a new sensitivity about the way in which we treat animals. We see them not as a mass of unfeeling cells but as sentient creatures. That is an advance in our whole approach to humankind and other species. We cannot deny that. If animals have to be used and if scientists are to win respect, such experiments must be essential.
Last year we received a report from the other place which greatly added to our knowledge of the subject. It pointed out clearly that regulations within Europe pose a formidable problem which must be addressed. Much of the problem coming from Europe arises from the perception there that this is an unknown aspect of science which will lead us down a path that people greatly fear. We must recognise that.
However, there are other problems, which cause even greater concern. One is our position vis-a-vis other countries. The best evidence for that was a study conducted last year which compared spending on research by 336 British companies with similar investment by the world's 200 top spenders. The results were alarming. The Edinburgh company that undertook the survey placed only II British firms in the top 200—two fewer than in the previous year. One of them, ICI, was the highest-ranked British company but was placed only 47th—12 down on its record position the previous year.
The reasons for that are complex. British companies spent on average only 1·6 per cent. of their income on research and development, compared with an average of 4·6 per cent. for the world's top 200 companies. Spending by the 11 British companies in the top 200 averaged just 2·5 per cent., compared with between 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. by everyone else. That situation is worsening.
The survey's most damning figures demonstrate the generosity of British companies towards their shareholders, which spent on average twice as much on dividends as they did on research and development. Companies in the world's top 200 invest more in a future return on R and D,


whereas British companies believe that they must pay their shareholders five times more than their international competitors.
Even the high quality of United Kingdom university research has not been translated into commercial success. Technology transfer is meant to overcome that problem, but central to it are patents for biological inventions. The London stock exchange requires patents before it allows a full company listing and venture capital is usually invested in patented products. Traditionally, scientists at British universities have not applied for patents before publishing their results. They must be urged to act far more commercially and to register patents rapidly. In my constituency, they must get motor bikes going down the M4.
Industrial sponsorship of university research has improved to some extent as spending per student has fallen. The Government's policy of research funding on the basis of research assessment exercises means that some university research departments are losing out badly. Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester universities are doing well, but others are not.
Britain is being overtaken by other countries in the struggle to ensure that the glittering prizes of biotechnology will be ours in future. If Britain does not change and act, it will lose the race for those glittering prizes.

Mr. Roger Knapman: It seems extraordinary that, when we debate yesterday's interests—such as closing a colliery because it cannot sell its coal, or a shipyard because it cannot sell its ships—the House is crowded and noisy, but when we debate research among tomorrow's generation of industries, on which Britain's wealth and prosperity depend, the House is fairly subdued and not many right hon. and hon. Members are in their places.
Approving the orders is vital to successful implementation of the reforms set out in last summer's White Paper, which was welcomed in many quarters. In an intervention, I drew attention to a comment made by Nature. Another publication, Laboratory News, remarked:
We therefore welcomed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement in his Budget speech that the spending on science will be fully protected next year. Mr. Waldegrave's promise has been kept.
Sir William Barlow, president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:
By creating a research council specifically for engineering and physical sciences it should be possible for the Government to fund the research projects which relate to real markets and will aid the nation's future prosperity.
The Times Higher Education Supplement carried the headline:
Science White Paper is good news.
Anyone thinking of voting against the orders cannot understand much about the subject.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) thought that Britain would be hobbling into the future with an underfunded science base, yet this afternoon I heard the most extraordinary speech in the seven years since I entered the House. I refer to that by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in which, to my certain knowledge, he did not promise any increased expenditure

if a Labour Government came to power. There must be great fear among members of Labour's Front Bench about the power and influence of the shadow Chancellor. In those circumstances, if anyone is hobbling into the future, it must be the Labour party rather than the research councils.
I have the privilege to sit on the Agricultural and Food Research Council, and I greatly welcome the reappointment of Sir Alistair Grant as its part-time chairman. He commands the admiration of all connected with the council —and Professor Tom Blundell's energy and enthusiasm are infectious. I am sure that he will enjoy success at the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, as he did at the AFRC.
Perhaps it is a good thing—my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) is not in his place—that the AFRC's prestigious premises in Swindon can be used for the new councils, not least because of their reasonable proximity to Swindon railway station's up platform, which is convenient to a number of us from time to time.
The new council is created by combining the AFRC, with its £110 million science budget, with biotechnology and biological sciences from the SERC, with its £50 million science budget. That must be a sensible and forward-looking policy. I suppose that the new BBSRC is bound to be known before long as the "back to basics" science research council. It has a broad and well-balanced base of fundamental science—from bimolecular science, through genetics and physiology to complex biological and engineering systems. There is no doubt that there are synergies between research projects previously supported by the separate councils.
The industrial user community of agriculture, food, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology also has a coherence that was not achieved when those interests were the responsibility of separate councils. For example, technologies for non-food users of farm produce will have to be adopted by the chemicals and pharmaceuticals industries to make plastics, fibres and therapeutics. Through the directorates for agriculture, food, and chemicals and pharmaceuticals, the BBSRC will fund research responding to market pull from those industries.
Following the wealth creation emphasis of last year's science and technology White Paper, the new council will have fresh policies for increasing interaction with industry and other users of research and training. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is not short of questions to answer, I must ask whether it is right and reasonable to expect about half the council's members to be industrial and Government users. Last Sunday's "Money Programme" on BBC2 focused on the many opportunities that business and commerce may now have with regard to such research.
The BBSR's draft royal charter gives the council responsibility for supporting research and postgraduate training, meeting the needs of users and increasing public understanding of science. In pursuit of that last objective, the council will support a Danish-style consensus conference on plant biotechnology later this year, organised by the Science museum.
The new council's research and postgraduate training funds will flow in almost equal amounts to universities and its world-famous research institutes. In the temporary absence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I will ask only one question. Is he aware that the council members of the AFRC have expressed concern about the need for adequate representation of the agriculture and


food industries on the expert panels that are to be set up in line with the technology foresight programme? If my hon. Friend is able to make an announcement on that matter, it would be appreciated.
I believe that two hon. Members still wish to speak; I have therefore somewhat précised my remarks. I hope that these debates on tomorrow's industries, without which we cannot expect to achieve a good standard of living, will increasingly attract more hon. Members into the Chamber, and that some of the debates on yesterday's industries—even about subsidising stagecoaches—will create a little less noise in future.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I shall start by welcoming these statutory instruments and the new division of responsibility of the research councils, because they will do a great deal to make them more effective. We should perhaps particularly welcome the separation of particle physics from the rest of the science and engineering work, because, undoubtedly, it has often been a drain on resources.
As the exchange rate of the pound has changed, our international contributions to research have become a great deal more expensive than expected. As particle physics has been a drain on the other science and engineering research work, and therefore damaging, I am pleased to see them separated.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about the lack of overall direction of Government science policy. We must remember that the research councils represent only a small part of Government spending on research.
It appears that the Chancellor of the Duchy has totally failed to win over his colleagues to the concept of a Government strategy rather than just an Office of Science and Technology strategy. If we compare the £1·2 billion that is spent on the research councils to the £12 billion that is spent by the Ministry of Defence on development and procurement, we can see that it is merely a drop in the great ocean of Government research spending.
Another alarming feature is the way in which the DTI appears to be continuing to close and merge its laboratories. A number of them have been mentioned this afternoon, but I should like to mention Warren Spring laboratory near Stevenage. I uderstand that there will be an announcement in the next two or three weeks about other laboratories that are either becoming totally independent or being merged with other laboratories.
The Department of the Environment, too, has closed down laboratories. The closure of the National Rivers Authority laboratory near Peterborough will affect some of the members in my constituency who work there. They appear not to be closed down for any useful or practical reason, but simply because of Treasury cuts, or perhaps an ideological reason that will leave the DTI and the Department of the Environment with few facilities.
Those cuts will undermine and undervalue the important work that is done by scientists. Certainly, many scientists feel demoralised at present with the way in which the Government are carrying out their fairly ruthless cutting exercise. The scientific world was rather shocked when the DTI decided not to reappoint its chief scientific adviser, following the departure of Geoffrey Robinson, who has returned to his old job at IBM.
I draw the Chancellor's attention to a course at Cambridge university, in my constituency, that is partly funded by SERC and the Gatsby Foundation. It is an advanced course in design and manufacturing engineering and is run by Professor Colin Andrew. It is achieving a great many of the Government's objectives, because it takes a number of graduate students and, for most of the course, sends them into industries for fairly short periods, not only to observe but actively participate and undertake projects that improve the efficiency of the manufacturing process of those industries.
By the time the students have completed their course, they have experienced 20 or 30 firms and come out well equipped to start a productive job in industry, as well as having a good sound basic scientific knowledge and a good sound knowledge of manufacturing.
Such a course is beneficial not only to students, but to the firms as well. They know that, having spoken to one or two of the managing directors of those firms, their contribution is valued enormously. It is rather a shame, therefore, that SERC could not find enough money to fund the 30 extra students that Professor Andrew was hoping he would be able to take this year. There was certainly no shortage of applications. In fact, the course is over-subscribed many times.
I believe that that is the sort of project that the Government should encourage, and hope that the Chancellor, or perhaps the Minister, will investigate why that course cannot be expanded.
I shall briefly mention academic push and market pull, because in the debate we are trying—it is certainly the job of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—to ensure that academic push is pushing scientific knowledge into the marketplace.
Unless industry is prepared to pick up that expertise and those skills and knowledge, we will not benefit in the way we should. The managing director of the Welding Institute at Abingdon, near Cambridge, has said that he believes that firms are in one of four states: the first is complete ignorance about innovation or scientific progression; the second is awareness; the third is continuous improvement; and the fourth is best practice. He told me that he believes that, unfortunately, about 90 per cent. of British firms fall into the first category.
A number of firms, such as the Welding Institute, Camden Food Industry Research Association, which some members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology were able to visit recently, and the Flour Millers and Bakers Research Association, which I have visited, do an excellent job in transferring scientific knowlege, often with the help of research council money, from the science base often into small firms—firms that do not often benefit from the innovation and invention of British scientists.
I think that we should encourage those technology transfer organisations. If the Government have finally decided that Faraday centres are not the way they want to progress, ways of encouraging those organisations, through Government grants and perhaps research council grants, would be helpful.
Finally, I know that time is short, but I would like to spend a little time talking about the difficulties that many women face in trying to pursue academic careers. I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy set up a working party to consider the participation of women in science. Many of us welcomed that, but, although we were promised that a


report would be published in the autumn, we are still waiting for it. We looked for it in September, October and November; I was then told that it would appear in January. However, it has not appeared yet.
The establishment of the working party was, I think, prompted by the realisation that, although many women were receiving a good education and a sound training in science, they were still not using their skills to the full. Much of that expensive training is being wasted—through no fault of the women concerned, who want to work but are encountering the various structural difficulties inherent in the present system.
It must be said that the Government did not set a very good example. Despite equal opportunities guidelines issued within the OST, which were intended to encourage women to return to science and technology, the Chancellor of the Duchy did not see fit to appoint any women to the Foresight technology steering committee. That is a great pity, and it was also a major mistake: women, after all, are largely responsible for consumer spending.
We should look to the future. When we consider wealth creation, we must also consider the areas in which we shall want to spend our wealth; women make many decisions in that connection, and a female appointment to the committee could have made a valuable contribution to the effort to predict the sectors in which wealth creation will be important.
The Prime Minister told us today that girls had achieved better science results this year. We all welcome that news; however, we do not want to wait for 30 or 40 years for those girls to occupy the top positions. In the meantime, many women will feel frustrated about their failure to make the progress that they should be making.
At least one research council head has recognised the problem. Laboratory News quotes Professor Blundell, the new head of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences research council, as saying:
One important challenge is to keep women in science after the age of 30, when they have to be rather competitive to make progress up the career ladder, but when they have a major and unfair share of the responsibilities at home, especially if there are children".
That encapsulates the problems experienced by women —not only in the domestic sphere, in persuading men to take their full share of responsibilities in the home, but in the scientific sphere, where they are often competing for short-term contracts that may involve work some distance from their homes. Alternatively, they may be competing for permanent jobs in universities or research council laboratories, which may be complicated by child care responsibilities.
Many of those difficulties are, of course, faced by women in all professions: many female professionals would be helped by an increase in the availability of affordable child care facilities, for instance. Moreover, the lack of a proper scientific career structure poses many problems, as does the need to move to different locations to take advantage of research vacancies.
Much still needs to be done. I hope that, when the report on women in science is eventually published, it will not lie dormant on a shelf, but will be a basis for discussion. I also hope that its ideas will be implemented, even if that means extra Government spending on this important subject.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I welcome today's announcements. In these times of economic austerity, to find nearly £8 million of new money is no mean feat. Along with many colleagues on both sides of the House, I look forward to the details in regard to ROPA—"Realising Our Potential Awards"—and the postgraduate schemes; I especially look forward to hearing more about the extra funds for industry-identified research projects.
I echo all that has been said about the reorganisation of the research councils, which will refocus their aims and enable them to deal with their tasks more coherently. That applies particularly to their fulfilment of the White Paper's much-emphasised requirements in regard to wealth creation. I have been impressed by the many favourable comments made by witnesses to the Select Committee on Science and Technology; it has also been encouraging to hear of the many commitments made by those on all sides of the debate to the future improvement of university research and their co-operation with industry. These orders are part of that process, and I therefore welcome them.
Fundamental research is an important part of our research activities. Because we have always been good at this in the United Kingdom, I think it right at this time to place more emphasis on wealth creation: we have been less successful there, and we should try to improve. I especially welcome the creation of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, which is concerned with what is affectionately known as "big science". These two subjects have been uncomfortable bedfellows—in the Science and Engineering Research Council—placed together with a wide range of less expensive scientific endeavours which have felt deprived by the large financial demands of particle physics and astronomy.
Our distinguished scientists in those fields have a well-earned international reputation: we should never forget that the United Kingdom was a pioneer in particle physics, space and astronomy. We remain world leaders, much respected and I believe sought after as partners in collaboration. The United Kingdom will, for instance, play an active role in all the coming European Space Agency space science missions; the triumphs of the Giotto mission to Halley's comet, with the involvement of British Aerospace, and the United Kingdom contribution to the design of one of the Hubble telescope's cameras—now working perfectly—are just two examples of successes.
I welcome the separation of these two areas of science, which enables the finance to be isolated from other areas and will—I hope—enable the Treasury to deal with the vulnerability of their international subscriptions to fluctuating exchange rates more equitably than in the past. At the very least, I wish my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy well in his future battles with the Treasury on exchange rates. Government should recognise that the United Kingdom can participate in world-leading "big science" only by being part of international programmes, which require long-term funding stability.
The PPARC's primary function is the pursuit of intellectual knowledge, but it also has a role in helping industrial competitiveness. For example, it influences the employment of trained manpower: space and particle physics is a subject that attracts young people into science, and the experience that they gain in international projects is prized by manufacturing industry. Young scientists with


experience in space, astronomy and particle physics—many of whom will be women, judging by last year's exam results—are valued by employers because they have learned to work in teams, to deadlines and in international consortia.
"Big science" also requires technology at the cutting edge, and industry in general values the experience of those who have worked in space and on major projects connected with it. The astronomy, space and particle physics programmes already interact with industry to a considerable extent. Under its chairman, the PPARC will want to build on that, and—in the spirit of the White Paper —to maximise the potential of its programmes.
I believe that the success of the new councils will depend on the individuals who are appointed. I echo the welcome extended to Peter Williams, chairman and chief executive of Oxford Instruments, which is one of the United Kingdom's top companies in terms of turning science into profit. I also welcome the appointment of Professor Ken Pounds, a leading space scientist in both national and international terms. These appointments bode well for the industry-science interface.
Turning to my interest in space, we shall now have three research councils interested in and funding space activities. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council will fund space science; the Natural Environment Research Council will take responsibility for earth observation and remote sensing from space; and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council will, I hope, be interested in future technologies required for space, which are also relevant down here on earth.
The European Space Agency has a crucial role to play in that area. Although ESA is going through a difficult transitional phase, it is important to preserve the good features of its mandatory space-science programme, to which the United Kingdom is a major contributor. That programme is now the most stable element in ESA and, although we must continue to press for greater cost effectiveness in ESA programmes, we must not forget that the issue of subscriptions to ESA and CERN, the European nuclear research centre, will be central to the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.
I am concerned, however, that space expenditure will be divided between the three research councils. That will mean increasing importance for the British National Space Centre's role in co-ordinating space expenditure in the United Kingdom. With the creation of the Office of Science and Technology, the Government should look again at the organisation of the BNSC within the Department of Trade and Industry. Can a case now be made for transferring it into the OST, which I believe is its natural home? I hope that the Minister will comment on that, if not today, in the near future.
There is now a positive feeling in the scientific area, engendered by the Government's innovative response to the need to produce a policy on science. We responded with the first White Paper in 20 years and the results of the research councils are further evidence before us. I wish the operations of the new research councils well.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: This has been an interesting debate, and I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to it,

particularly my hon. Friends. I shall leave it to the Minister to congratulate his hon. Friends and comment on their speeches—after all, that is his job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point that must be answered, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), on the subject of women and science. The Minister said absolutely nothing about that subject in his extremely long —albeit interesting—speech.
In general, we welcome both the opportunity for debate—twice in a year is really something, and we may have a third opportunity if we debate the "forward look" proposals in April—and the proposals. We support the general thrust of splitting up the research councils into more logical groups. The Science and Engineering Research Council, SERC, had become too unwieldy, although it had the singular advantage of being easier to say than PPARC and EPSRC.
I am happy, too, that the Government have said that, in the light of experience, they are prepared to modify and rethink the objectives contained in last year's White Paper. There have been some particularly welcome signs on the subject of masters degrees and the extent to which they should be introduced.
The Royal Society of Chemistry would like to know the Government's assessment of the relative merits of a four-year degree course followed by a three-year PhD. It runs a three-year degree course followed by a one-year MSc and a three-year PhD. In defining that issue, it would be grateful to know what role the Office of Science and Technology and the Department for Education will play in attempting to resolve it.
It also wants the Chancellor to say what steps will be taken by the new research councils to ensure full interdepartmental co-operation between the OST, the DFE and DTI to develop the highest possible standards of research training. I hope that, broadly speaking, that is the line the Chancellor intends to follow.
I notice from the report of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology that there has been much revision and toing and froing in the technology foresight programme. At one time, the debate was described as "acrimonious". I am sure that it was not too acrimonious, but, once again, there may have been a sign of some flexibility.
I hope that, despite all this effusive praise, the Government recognise that many problems remain unanswered. It will come as no surprise that I intend to mention a few. For example, I hope that the Government will give clear guidance on their thinking in the development of the chosen methods of assessment of scientific and technical needs and in securing tangible support from other Departments. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will contribute more to the "forward look" programme than it did to the White Paper. Its contribution consisted of one mean paragraph.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): It was a chapter.

Dr. Moonie: It was a pretty short chapter. I should not like to define it as a chapter.
In the light of recent behaviour, the DTI needs convincing about what is happening. Other Departments often mouth support for what we in science are trying to do, but they are less convincing when it comes to doing


something about it. The closing down of the advanced technology programme was good timing, coming on the same day as the announcement of the White Paper.
Before this debate, the DTI said that it would not replace the chief scientist. That may convince the Chancellor, but it does not convince me about the DTI's ability to co-operate in what we are trying to achieve for science. I hope that he will forgive me if, until I see a change, I maintain a healthy scepticism about the Government's overall true intentions. Promises are easily made, but concrete support is more difficult to establish in their wake.
If the director general has no direct-line responsibility for the research councils, as seems likely, it would be a misnomer to refer to him as a "director general". His title should therefore be changed to reflect what he will do. He will not direct the work of the research councils but will advise the Secretary of State. Do the Government intend to publish his advice? Will they publish the advice given to him, in turn, by the Committee? After all, this is the Department of open government, and I want a tangible assurance that the process will be transparent.
I welcome the role of the Committee for Science and Technology, but some concern has been expressed about the placement of two chairs of research councils on that Committee. If we are to have a proper purchaser-provider split, taking the purchaser role into the Department, it is illogical that only two of the providers of the chairs of the research councils will serve on that Committee.
That concern was also expressed in the excellent report by the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Chancellor should take cognisance of that. I have nothing against the two people concerned. They are excellent choices as chairs for the research councils, but there is confusion over their roles. As the Committee will advise the Minister, will its advice be published? Will it be subject to scrutiny by the Select Committee in this House?
On the research councils, I am worried about several points. I accept that what is being done in science should relate to what we hope to do ultimately with it in industry, but it should never be seen as taking over what should be done by industry or what the DTI should support. Although I welcome the initiatives announced today and the extra funding that will go to valuable areas, in the past few years the loss in funds for support for research in industry by the DTI amounts to more than £100 million. Getting £15 million of that back through the science budget is no substitute.
Our views on the role of science spending are supported by industry. The role of the Association for the British Pharmaceutical Industry is to maintain and strengthen the excellent contribution of United Kingdom scientists and engineers to the overall knowledge and cultural base of the world community.
From Thorn EMI we have the words:
enhancing future options for mankind, improving our understanding of nature and natural phenomena and our place in the scheme of things",
and from the Confederation of British Industry:
an immense, largely unquantifiable contribution to Britain's literary, artistic and cultural fabric
We still need an assurance that money intended for science expenditure will be spent on science and not misdirected

into areas in which industry itself ought to be spending. I am sure that there will be no great disagreement about this.
If there are to be changes in the balance of spending within the science budget, there will be losers as well as winners. As yet, we have had no indication as to who will lose. That is the way of things. It is clear that, if we are to move into new areas—if, for example, we are to direct money into some of our new universities that currently lack research departments—unless there is a substantial increase in the budget, which is not yet forthcoming although we wait in hope, there will be losers. I hope that, in the course of the Minister's winding-up speech, we shall be given some indication whether there has been thinking along these lines.
I am glad to say that the report on the allocation of resources was placed in the Library today. May I have confirmation that what it contains merely represents a pro rata division of what would have been the budget based on last year's historic costs, or has there been a substantial change in the emphasis in spending? It is important that this information be provided. Apart from anything else, it would save me from having to go back to last year's figures and work things out.
I should like, in conclusion, to make some specific points about the individual research councils. There is no doubt that the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council has a very important role to play in wealth creation —indeed, that applies to all the councils. But the Government must sort out their technology foresight programme. There is continuing debate about whether the programme should be market-sector-led or technology-led. This is an important difference when it comes to attaching importance to objectives. Is technology foresight intended to be used to change the balance of the science budget? If so, in what way?

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Member give way?

Dr. Moonie: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way. If it is possible to do so later, I shall.
The House of Lords Select Committee has suggested that the technology foresight exercise should be used to help the "Forward Look" programme. In other words, the perspective should be five to 10 years, as opposed to the Public Expenditure Survey Committee round of one to three years. This is a very important distinction, and I should like to be made aware of the Government's thinking on the subject. The Department of Trade and Industry must not be allowed to palm off its responsibilities for applied technology and for research and development closely related to industry.
The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council is a subject close to my own heart. Here, I intend to concentrate on one issue—the large hadron collider. Apart from all the other arguments that I intend to adduce in my personal support for this worthy project—I am grateful for the letter that I received today from the Chancellor, in which the right hon. Gentleman answered some of the questions that I put to him—I have to say that no Higgs Boson, to which he has committed himself—[Interruption.] This may rather pass over the heads of many hon. Members. Unless the right hon. Gentleman delivers on this matter, his visit to the annual meeting of the Physical Society, which I think takes place in March,


may well be punctuated by empty champagne bottles rather than by the plaudits that he would receive if he were to come out in support.
Let us be very clear about this matter. The Americans have stopped work on the superconducting super-collider —SSC. The large hadron collider is the only viable replacement for it. We must first persuade the Americans and the Japanese to join in the funding, as the project is expensive. We must ensure continuity of funding of our commitment to CERN so that work may continue. If necessary, we must provide bridging loans so that work which must be done before funds would normally be allocated may be properly financed.
We must work out the level of access, but, above all—and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House want the project to go ahead—the Government must make a clear statement to that effect. It must be made clear to the world at large that we are not dragging our feet, as the Germans appear to be doing. Understandably, the Americans are at sixes and sevens. If particle physics and astronomy are to move forward, we must continue to advance the boundaries of science. At present, the only way to do that is through the large hadron collider.
The biological side has been covered very adequately by my hon. Friends. I do not propose to add anything to what they have said, except by way of an expression of my own concern about the increased number of interfaces and the problems that we have in deciding into which category of research specialties like chemical engineering should fall. These are very important specialties, and they are particularly relevant to wealth creation. It would be very sad indeed if they were to fall between the interests in the new set-up.
I think that I have exhausted the time allocated to me. No doubt the Minister would need more than the remaining 15 minutes to reply adequately to the many questions that have been raised.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): At the outset, I must convey the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to those who have taken part in the debate for his departure from the Chamber. He had to meet the chairman of the European Parliamentary Science Committee, Mr. Claude Desama.
The purpose of the orders is to put the research councils in place as part of the machinery for delivering the strategy outlined in the White Paper, "Realising Our Potential". One of the oblique advantages of the White Paper is that it has proved to be a catalyst for a series of very high quality debates, here and elsewhere, on the role of science. Indeed, this has been not the least of those debates. We have heard some complaints about the number of hon. Members present, but there is no doubt about the quality of the contributions from both sides of the House. I refer in particular to the formidable contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and to the contribution of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), whose subleties the Department misses from time to time. I shall return to some of the issues that my predecessor raised. I refer also to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), as well as to those

of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and other Opposition Members. Many issues were raised, and I shall deal with as many of them as possible.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) referred to the role of the Director General of the Research Councils —in particular, his relationship with the councils. In essence, this is a relationship of general direction. The research councils' missions are spelt out very clearly in the White Paper and are set out in these orders. Indeed, some of the consultations are being taken on board. It is for the director general to work with the council chief executives to keep to the agreed strategy. The relationship is by nature a co-operative one.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy also asked about openness. We shall seek, as far as possible, to make the process transparent. As a first symbol of that—something that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—we have deposited in the Library information about the allocation of funding between the research councils and the logic behind it. The £15·5 million strategic allocation is included in the change, so we do not have just a pro rata figure.
The hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as a conflict of interests on the Council for Science and Technology. This is not strictly a purchaser-provider relationship and there is no obvious conflict of interests. The CST is dealing in overall science strategy—at what one might describe as the stratospheric level, rather than at the level of differential funding between councils. The people in question—Alan Rudge and Peter Williams, I think—were chosen for the CST because of their wide experience. Incidentally, they were appointed as non-executive chairmen of councils for the very same reasons. We understand the hon. Member's point. What is most important is that we get the very best people, and the hon. Gentleman himself has said that those people are very capable.
With regard to animal experiments, an issue raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, I hate palming off such matters to other Departments but the use of animals in experiments is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which makes it the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The research councils have been active in promoting good practice in respect of animals used in the work that they fund and I am sure that the BBSRC will continue to build on the AFRC's good work.
I am not sure which hon. Member mentioned the more general question of ethics guidance. En passant, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said that I had volunteered to be a subject in the Megalab experiment. During the persuasion process through which my Department put me I was taken aback by the final comment, "Don't worry—we have the technology, we can rebuild you." That brings me to the question of guidance on genetic engineering. A Government body, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, has a specific remit in that respect and there is also an independent body, the Nuffield Council. As we are all aware, the process involves the development of consensus and we expect the research councils to observe and live by that consensus.

Dr. Moonie: On the question of guidelines, I forgot to mention the patenting of genetic material. That is not covered by the present guidelines, which deal solely with ethics.

Mr. Davis: I suspect that that will fall to the Department of Trade and Industry but we, too, will consider it. It is a matter of obvious and international interest, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked when we expect the report on women in science to be published. Without seeking to redefine the autumn, I shall say that the target date for the report is now 24 February. I have no reason to believe that that target will not be met.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage and others raised specific and detailed concerns about Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories. Following the end of SERC, they will come together under common management and for an interim period become the responsibility of the new EPSRC. The separate identities of the two laboratories will, however, be preserved. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, a review is now under way to consider the options for the running of the laboratories as a self-standing institution after an interim period. No conclusion has yet been reached, but I understand the wish for a rapid conclusion.
My right hon. Friend has already stated clearly how much we value the laboratories. There is no doubt that they are first-class institutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage presented a persuasive case which will, of course, be considered carefully. He also made a more subtle point about the role of the research councils in that connection. It follows from the new missions of the research councils that they should support research where appropriate for the fulfilment of missions, but the maintenance of the overall health of the science and engineering base is also part of that mission together with the effective use of funds.
The White Paper, "Realising Our Potential", recognised that science and technology provide the fundamental underpinning of the United Kingdom's ability to compete in international markets. It is given in the House that competitiveness is a fundamental theme in all that we debate. The White Paper set out a strategy, the bare bones of which are an emphasis on quality and relevance of research, an emphasis on partnership between industry and academia and the use of Technology Foresight and the "Forward Look" in guidance, and I am referring to long-term guidance.
We have introduced, or are introducing, new structures to permit such a strategy: the Office of Science and Technology was already set up before the White Paper was published; the DGRC, Sir John Cadogan, has recently been appointed; and the Council for Science and Technology is now established, as is the Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee, a body about which I should like to speak at length and will perhaps have the opportunity to do so during a "Forward Look" debate. In addition, we are now reorganising the research councils.
The creation of the three new research councils encompassed in the orders is an imortant step. The BBSRC will have an important role to play in underpinning life sciences where we are beginning to see radical new developments. I shall try to deal quickly with the points raised in this connection by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked about representation for agriculture in the Foresight process.
Of course, agriculture is not explicitly represented on the Foresight steering group, but that institution is not

intended to be representative. It consists of 10 expert members selected solely with a view to Foresight expertise. However, there will be an agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector panel, so the interests of agriculture will be properly represented.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West wondered how agricultural efficiency and food safety would be dealt with. That will be part of MAFF's role but the new BBSRC will take over the AFRC's responsibility for food and agriculture, as specifically outlined in one of the orders. I hope that my comments have helped the hon. Gentleman.
As everyone has said, the EPSRC will have close links with industries underpinned by the physical sciences and engineering and building on good work already done by SERC.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon mentioned the appointment of the chief executive of the EPSRC. The hon. Gentleman is very well informed. We shall be making an announcement soon. We have gone about the selection in the same way as we proceeded in the appointment of the chief executives of the NERC and the PPARC. It was the method used by previous Labour Governments. They are important posts so it is important to get the right people but we shall be making an announcement soon.
The PPARC involves special commitments and special problems, involving foreign currency subscriptions and long-planning timetables. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy mentioned international commitments. The United Kingdom is a signatory of the treaty governing CERN and there is no question of our reneging on our commitments. The United Kingdom supports a globalisation of CERN and the involvement of the United States, Canada and Japan in the LHC—the large hadron collider—following the demise of the roughly equivalent superconducting super-collider, or SSC.
We believe that the new British Director General of CERN, Professor Llewellyn Smith, will work with member states and non-member states to come up with a sound scientific and financial package to enable the LHC to go ahead, but the formal decision comes before the CERN council in June and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish us to pre-empt it at this stage.

Mr. Dalyell: What discussions are taking place with the Americans on the LHC? It is an urgent and important matter.

Mr. Davis: As I have intimated, my belief is that the director general has been having discussions on the matter but I cannot go further than that at the moment.
The PPARC pays subscriptions to CERN and to the European Space Agency as part of its mandatory science programme. As has been said, they are affected by currency fluctuations. One of the roles of the DGRC is to ensure that the fluctuations are absorbed by more than just the small budget of the PPARC. I shall have to leave it at that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon raised a specific constituency interest about the reform of the research councils in general. We hope to take the opportunity offered by the reorganisation to streamline pension arrangements, introducing a single pension scheme for all Swindon-based research councils. It is purely an administrative change and will not affect the pension or redundancy entitlements of staff.
The new research council structure and the new council mission statements, with their commitment to contribute to wealth creation and the quality of life, are key elements in delivering the new partnership which is at the heart of the White Paper. I want to make it clear that we intend to maintain basic research, and the White Paper contains our clear commitment to do so. Research councils will have the responsibility of ensuring an increased emphasis on the relevance of research to the users of that research, but their missions also refer unambiguously to the support of high quality basic research. We do not believe that those are mutually exclusive.
Industrialists have given us the clear message that they value greatly the basic research produced by our science and engineering base. They will wish that to be maintained. In the words of Richard Sykes of Glaxo Holdings plc, what he wants from the country in which he invests are
well-trained people and good basic research.
The strategy designed in the White Paper and the structures that we are discussing today are already leading to real actions. The new Director General of the Research Councils is already introducing pilot mechanisms to develop real partnership between the science base and industry. Money squeezed out by improved efficiency is being devoted to the "Realising Our Potential" awards that we have heard about. Other efficiency-generated research funds will go to areas identified by industry as being of strategic importance and further cash for Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering fellowships. The system is already beginning to work.
It has been a truism for a long time that Britain is brilliant at generating good basic science—perhaps the best in the world—but for many decades it has not been as good as its competitors at translating that scientific dominance into technological excellence.

It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, pursuant to order [28 January].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

Child Support

7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move,
That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.
I am aware of the wide interest in the Child Support Act 1991 and in the changes to it that we are debating tonight. It is most important to set that interest in the wider context of child maintenance and to establish again the principles that underpin the Act and the Child Support Agency.
The Child Support Act was introduced with all-party support on the back of a deteriorating situation in respect of child maintenance. Nearly 1 million lone parents and their children depended on income support, yet only a quarter of those received any regular maintenance. The old system of obtaining maintenance through the courts or the Department of Social Security offices was obviously failing those parents and their children. It was slow, inaccessible and led to low and inconsistent settlements. The Child Support Act was designed to halt the significant decline in the payment of maintenance that had occurred during the previous decade and to move away from a system that, all too often, involved the taxpayer as an unwitting party in the settlement.
The basic principle behind the new system, as the House well knows, is that both parents should be responsible for maintaining their children where they can afford to do so. The taxpayer should have to help only where parents do not have the means to meet their obligation. That basic principle is widely supported, but it means in practice that those who have responsibility for children must shoulder a greater degree of the financial burden for them than in the past. In other words, in many cases parents must pay more if other taxpayers, often on low incomes with families of their own, are to contribute less. Those who support the principle must recognise the need to support putting it into practice.
We always made it clear that we would keep the operation of the scheme under review, and we were aware that other people would also do so. It is no exaggeration, therefore, for the all-party Social Security Select Committee to have described the Child Support Act as
the most far reaching social reform to be made for forty years".
We recognise also that there have been genuine worries about the way in which the new system is working in detail. We have, therefore, conducted a thorough review of its operation, during which we considered all representations from hon. Members, the public and other interested parties. At the same time, the all-party Social Security Select Committee examined the policy and the operation of child support. The Committee had the opportunity to suggest tearing the whole thing up, but did not. Instead, its thoughtful and balanced report is unequivocal in its support for the basic principles of the scheme.
In drawing up the regulations, we have especially sought to answer the worries of those absent parents most affected by the new scheme, while bearing in mind that any change that is beneficial to an absent parent is potentially of disadvantage to a parent with care and her children. Some of our conclusions coincide with those of the Select Committee, some do not and some have gone further.
We agree with the Select Committee that it is better to leave absent parents more financial choice to meet other


demands on them than to try to incorporate into the formula a range of specific costs, such as travel to work, visiting first families and other debts. Such a move, we believe, would provide a shopping list of items that would be viewed as essential by some but not by others, and would have the effect of reducing the priority given to child maintenance. The Select Committee said, and we agree:
We believe, however, that child maintenance in the form of money should have first call on a parent's income.

Dr. Robert Spink: I accept all that my hon. Friend has said so far, but does he accept that in some regions, such as the one that I represent, for many people the cost of travelling to work is greater than the cost of the mortgage? Will he consider that in his future deliberations about the development of the scheme?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a fair argument, but my response is the same as that of the Select Committee. The difficulty is that my hon. Friend has mentioned a special issue relating to his geographical location. It is precisely for that reason—hon. Members in different parts of the country can draw attention to similar matters—that one would end up with that shopping list of special exemptions that needed to be included in the formula. The argument that I put to the Select Committee, and the argument that the Select Committee accepted, was that, rather than creating that shopping list, it was better to ensure that sufficient residual income remained to meet the costs. I note my hon. Friend's interest in that point, but I would refer him to the Select Committee's response to it.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am glad to confirm that I agree with my hon. Friend on the general principle on which the Act is based. I am, however, seriously worried about the detail, which, as he says, obviously is not working.
I have written to my hon. Friend about eight specific cases. I can assure him that in each case the details of the Act have caused great hardship to hard-working men who now have two families to support. On each of the eight occasions on which I have written to my hon. Friend I have had the same anodyne reply, drafted by a civil servant, which has wholly ignored the individual points that I have put to my hon. Friend, and which has ignored the plight that the individuals are suffering as a result of the details of the Act. I ask my hon. Friend not to rely entirely on formulae, but to look with some compassion at the individual cases in which huge hardship is being caused and to amend the Act and the regulations accordingly to ensure that that injustice ceases.

Mr. Burt: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to develop the case for the regulations tonight. He will find that some of the worries that he has mentioned in his letters are met by some of the changes that we propose.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Burt: I shall take one more intervention and then I should like to make some progress.

Mr. Cryer: To many of us, the changes represented in the regulations are wholly inadequate. If the Minister thinks for a moment that they will satisfy the need for common justice, he is mistaken.
Let me take as an example a situation that is not confined to a region of the country, but is common to the whole country—the complete lack of recognition when a settlement is made on a former partner, including sometimes the marital home, with mortgage payments, often considerable, that continue when the second family starts. It promotes a very strong feeling of injustice, and a feeling that the Child Support Agency is more interested in the Treasury than in the child.

Mr. Burt: Perhaps I might develop my argument. I shall discuss clean breaks later. When the House passed the Act, all hon. Members were conscious of the pressure placed on taxpayers—ordinary men and women, often on low incomes, with families of their own—and the worry that they had for too long supported other people in the costs of their separation. When I hear arguments about the Treasury, I sometimes feel that hon. Members fail to realise that what lie behind the Treasury are everyday men and women who make their contributions to it.
The Government accepted the Select Committee's conclusion that there was no sensible way in which the capital value of past settlements could be reflected in current maintenance assessments, even if that were thought desirable. So-called "clean break settlements" are, essentially, ways to settle the question of spousal maintenance. There can be no clean break between a parent and his children. In any event, the formula already reflects the practical consequences of property settlements. Where an absent parent has not taken his share of any equity in the matrimonial home it is likely that he will incur higher costs when rehousing himself. As housing costs are taken into account pound for pound in the calculation of assessable income, his maintenance bill will lower.
I shall now outline our specific proposals—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Before the Minister does that, let me tell him that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, there is great dissatisfaction among people who are contributing, as opposed to those who are not contributing and who have disappeared. I urge the Minister to think again about the basic principles in the Act. It is not working. People are showing it up to be what it is—a fraud. Something ought to be done about it.

Mr. Burt: With respect, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee, which had the opportunity to say, "Tear the whole thing up, because it is a fraud, and it is not working", did not do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I hear some hon. Members saying that the Select Committee was rubbish, but I suspect that that would not be the view of the House as a whole.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Burt: I should like to make some progress now and outline our specific proposals. As well as introducing some important changes in child support arrangements, they make, as always, some technical drafting improvements designed to ensure that the original policy intentions are fully achieved. It might be of assistance to the House if I dealt with the most significant changes first. I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall confine myself to those changes.
Regulation 4 modifies in several respects the amount of maintenance calculated under the Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases)


Regulations 1992. Paragraph (2) concerns the assessment of maintenance to meet the basic needs of a child or children aged under 16. When maintenance is assessed, the calculation includes an amount in respect of a child's need to be looked after by an adult—the so-called carer element. The amount is set at the single adult personal allowance for income support, and it is included in recognition of the fact that children cannot look after themselves.
In drafting the amendment, we recognised that, rather than ending suddenly, that need reduces gradually as children grow older. Accordingly, it provides for the amount to be reduced by 25 per cent. when the youngest child reaches the age of 11, and by 50 per cent. when the youngest child reaches the age of 14. As now, that element is removed altogether when the youngest child reaches 16. Other allowances for children in the formula continue to rise as children grow older, recognising that some other needs increase as children grow older.

Ms Dawn Primarolo: As the Minister has pointed out, under the regulations the absent parent has to pay the entire amount calculated by social security for the attendant parent maintaining the child. That now results in a payment of £44, on average. At the beginning of his speech the Minister said that the purpose of the legislation was to ensure that both parents accepted their responsibilities. Will he therefore explain why only one parent has to pay the entire bill for the attendant costs of caring for the child under the formula, both as it was originally drawn up and as he is now describing it?

Mr. Burt: That happens because the child is physically present with only one of the two parents. Because the child is present with one parent and needs care, that care has to be provided and paid for. That is why the other parent, who does not have the physical care of the child, makes a contribution in financial form, by way of the carer element.

Ms Primarolo: In total?

Mr. Burt: Yes, in total. That is the point.
The new provision introduced by paragraphs (6) and (7) concerns cases where a person has care of the children of more than one absent parent, and is a consequence of the reduction in the carer element that I have just explained. In such cases an absent parent's maintenance assessment will reduce when his youngest child reaches the age of 11 or 14, even though the parent with care may have other younger children.
Paragraph (3) concerns the calculation of the additional amounts of maintenance paid by better-off absent parents. Where the absent parent has income left after meeting the basic maintenance requirement, he is currently required to pay 25 per cent. of that balance in additional maintenance. That element ensures that children share in the increased prosperity of their parents, even though they may live apart. The deduction rate is set at a lower rate than the 50 per cent. taken to meet the basic maintenance requirement, in recognition of the fact that parents are likely to spend a smaller proportion of their income on their children once they have met their basic needs.
The amendment will reduce the rate of deduction for the additional element of 20 per cent. where there are only two children to be maintained, and 15 per cent. where there is only one child. That provision recognises that extra expenditure on children, over and above their basic needs, is not likely to be as high for one or two children as it is

for three or more, and will moderate the very high amounts that some absent parents are expected to pay. That change goes beyond anything recommended by the Select Committee, and will alleviate some of the concerns put to us by hon. Members.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend and the Government have listened and have made some changes. However, in my view, those changes do not go far enough. My hon. Friend is talking about expenditure on children. One problem that has arisen in my constituency concerns stepchildren. Will my hon. Friend explain why such children are not considered? The idea sems to be that the step-parent should simply adopt them. I find that an extraordinary approach.

Mr. Burt: Again, one of the principles of the Act was that parents should, as a priority, be responsible for their own natural children. We believe that the formula sometimes protects stepchildren—the children of a second family—at the expense of the first family, especially where income is near the basic protected income level. At that level, it is possible that, while no payment is being made to a natural child in a first family, there is still protection for the child in a second family. We believe that the principle is important, and we therefore felt unable to accept the recommendation on stepchildren. However, we felt that by increasing the amount of protected income—I shall deal with that later—we would be able to provide extra for the stepchild. The principle that a natural child should have first call on a parent's income is important, and we did not wish to devalue it.

Ms Mildred Gordon: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Burt: No, I want to make a bit more progress before I take another intervention.
Paragraphs (4) and (5) substantially increase the level of protected income for absent parents—that relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). Protected income is the minimum amount that an absent parent and any second family must retain from their disposable income after payment of maintenance. Instead of only £8, as at present, absent parents will now keep a minimum of £30 above the level of help that they, and their new family if they have one, would get if they were on income support.
In addition, absent parents to whom protected income level applies will be able to keep an additional 15 per cent. of the difference between their basic protected income level and their total family income, instead of only 10 per cent., as at present. They will improve incentives to work by ensuring that the absent parent keeps an additional amount from any extra that he earns, and that will benefit not only the absent parent but, ultimately, the parent with care and the children. Again, that recommendation goes further than what the Select Committee suggested. I hope that that will be for the benefit of hon. Members and those whom they represent.
Regulation 4(8) streamlines the calculation of housing costs allowed in exempt income. It provides for the full amount of premiums on an insurance policy to discharge the mortgage on a parent's home to be allowed in the calculation of the parent's exempt income where the mortgage does not exceed £60,000. Where the mortgage exceeds £60,000 the existing provision will continue to


apply, so there will be a reduction in the amount of premiums allowed to take account of any "with profits" element of the policy. That, too, goes beyond the Select Committee's recommendations.
Regulation 5 amends regulations 1, 3 and 4 of the Child Support Fees Regulations 1992, which make provision for the charging of the collective service to absent parents where the application for maintenance has been made by a parent with care in receipt of income support, family credit or disability working allowance. Regulation 5 proposes that where a parent with care is in receipt of one of those benefits and the absent parent is making regular child maintenance payments direct to the parent with care, the Child Support Agency will not make a charge for the collection fee to the absent parent. Fees in such cases will become payable only where the agency becomes directly involved in either collection or enforcement action. That, too, was a Select Committee recommendation strongly supported by hon. Members.
Regulations 7 and 8 provide for a significant extension to the current provisions by introducing new arrangements for phasing in the higher awards under the new scheme. Absent parents with second families or care of a child for at least two nights per week, and with an existing court order or written maintenance agreement, whose maintenance assessment is over £60, will have any increase in their liability phased in over an 18-month period in six-monthly steps of £20, or 25 per cent. of the difference between the old and new liabilities if that is higher.
The new provisions also ensure that absent parents who are not entitled to the original phasing scheme, because all the qualifying children were not named on the maintenance agreement or because they did not have a second family, but nevertheless retained care of a child for at least two nights per week, are now included in a similar scheme. The new arrangements will help absent parents to adjust to their commitments over a period of time, while gradually increasing the amount that they pay. Those orginally on the phasing scheme will continue to be assessed under those rules as they are more beneficial to those on lower incomes.

Mr. Michael Stern: Will my hon. Friend explain to the House why, in framing the changes to the regulations, welcome as they are as far as they go, he has distinguished between those absent parents who have families to support and those who have a sick wife to support? Both have calls on their income, but only one is recognised.

Mr. Burt: We took the view that those in greatest difficulty in meeting new commitments to their children would be those who had taken on a second family. Clearly, all changes in circumstances force a certain amount of reconsideration, but the greater problem lies with those who have a new family and therefore new responsibilities to those families. Therefore, we believed that it was better to make the adjustments to allow them to have a greater period of time to pay because it was on the new children that the greatest burden would lie.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: We have all listened with a great deal of interest to the reforms that the Minister has proposed for the benefit of absent parents. What proposals does he have that would be of any benefit whatever to parents with care of children? Would not he

agree that there are thousands of parents with care who are suffering from the Child Support Act as it exists and see precious little benefit from his proposals? Those parents have the responsibility of looking after their children on an income that is depleted through the harsh regulations of the Act.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady puts the case that I made in my opening remarks. Any concession made to the absent parent who is paying has a consequent effect on those who expect to receive the money. The whole point is to recognise the fact that extra expense improves the circumstances of the parent with care of the child. If those who are required to pay maintenance pay less, somebody has to make up the difference. Either it is the parent with care of the child or it is the rest of society. All of us cannot have it all our own way. Somebody, somewhere bears the burden of looking after children. We firmly believe that where people cannot afford to look after their own children, the taxpayer and society in general have a responsibility to step in.
Also, because of various pressures on all the people who may be on low incomes and who have children of their own to support, where parents can shoulder that responsibility, they should do so. That was the whole point behind the Act. No hon. Member disagrees with that principle but when it is put into practice, the House finds it more difficult, because shifting the burden from the taxpayer to individuals means that, as the taxpayers pay less, some individuals may pay more. We tried to ensure that the burden was placed on those most responsible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Burt: If I may, I would like to proceed. Many hon. Members wish to take part. I have tried to be generous in allowing interventions, but I should make some progress.
Regulations 10 to 14 relate to the procedural changes needed to implement the important changes. We should not underestimate the extent of the massive task that the agency faces to implement the changes. However, I thought it essential to introduce the changes as soon as feasible, even if that may cause some difficulties and delays to the normal day-to-day business of the agency.
The changes that I have announced tonight and that are contained in the regulations are designed as a measured response to concern from constituents, hon. Members and independent commentators, who welcome almost without exception the Child Support Act, but are worried about aspects of its implementation.

Mr. David Ashby: Should not my hon. Friend's regulations take into account the fact that, where mothers do not give enough care to their child, there are caring fathers who replace some payments by seeing that the children have clothing and so on, which they would not have otherwise had? Should not they also take into account the fact that the father who is paying has to spend money on travel? In my area of north-west Leicester, most people have to travel to Leicester, to Derby or to Burton to work and it costs around £60 a month.

Mr. Burt: With respect to my hon. Friend, I dealt with his latter point earlier. I would appreciate us considering the way in which the Select Committee dealt with the same argument. My hon. Friend's first point is important. In the initial consideration of the Act, we considered the instance


in which a woman with care of a child was often not given so much money in maintenance. Instead, the absent parent would say that, while he was not giving the mother much money, he would see the children all right for clothes or shoes or something like that. The problem was that where those arrangements worked, all was well, but in many cases they did not and the woman was left wondering whether the extra offers would come through.
In putting the Act together, the House took the view, which was confirmed by the Select Committee, that it was better to receive a regular sum of maintenance money in the hand than to wonder whether that extra support in kind was coming through. Because of that practical reality, the change was made to ensure that maintenance money was delivered.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Burt: I am coming to a conclusion and want to allow more opportunities for hon. Members later. I shall be winding up and I shall have an opportunity later to deal with their concerns.
It is not possible to meet all concerns that have been raised by the Child Support Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] No, it is not. If we did so, we would end up renouncing the principles so soundly endorsed by the House in 1991 and again by the Select Committee report more recently.
In recognising the difficulties of those with second families in meeting adjustments to bear a heavier responsibility by allowing them longer to come to terms with payments, by reducing the level of payments in certain circumstances and by safeguarding still further the basic protected income, we believe that we are making more acceptable the balance in those matters between children, parents and the taxpayer. Each has a legitimate interest and a voice, and I am determined that the voice that has tended to be most silent in the matter, that of the mother with care of the child, will not be the voice least regarded.
For too long, an inconsistent and ineffective system allowed a sad decline in the payment of maintenance, and the taxpayer became the sleeping partner in separation agreements. I should emphasise to the House that in 96 per cent. of cases currently handled by the CSA, whatever may be the circumstances of the absent parent, there is dependency on benefits by the parent with care of the child. We should not return to that system. I hope that the changes will embed the principles better, and ensure that the system is fulfilling its aim of securing more maintenance, more regularly for more children. I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: One thing is clear about tonight's debate—it has underlined that every Member of the House knows that for many of his or her constituents the introduction of the Child Support Act has been traumatic and painful. I use the word "traumatic" almost in a literal sense, because it has been a shock which has in many cases threatened the process of rebuilding lives. Whatever we may think of the ultimate solutions and the merits of the regulations, every hon. Member must have been impressed by the anger, the genuine bewilderment and sometimes fear of people who wondered how they would manage in new and strange circumstances.
I recognise that I have repeated many times before, but I shall do so once more, the sentiment that, of course, Opposition Members share a good deal of common ground with the Minister—for example, we accept unequivocally that there is a duty on parents to support their children in all circumstances and in all the ways they can. I personally do not believe that financial contributions are an adequate substitute for the protection and support that full parenting brings, but I want to emphasise that they are an important part of the process. I also agree with the Minister that, having made the decision, Opposition Members must live with the fact that implementation is not easy and will inevitably cause problems and difficulties. I entirely accept that; there is no way that we can escape from that.
One of the most important factors in the new system is certainty of collection. I certainly want us to end what I think can fairly be described as the scandal whereby only one third of absent parents regularly contributed maintenance to their children. I hope that the Child Support Agency—with certain reforms which I believe we ought to consider—will move against that scandal.
Let me make it clear, too, that I can offer no comfort to the writers of many of the letters that I receive. Take the case of someone who writes and says, "My maintenance payment has gone up by 400 per cent." If it becomes apparent from the second paragraph of that person's letter that he has hitherto been paying on the basis of an outdated and inadequate court settlement bearing no relation to the true costs of educating and bringing up a child, we must reply that he will have to accept the fact that he will face a considerable increase in his contribution. Those facts are not an issue between us. I repeat, however, that there is pain and suffering and that there is perceived injustice, and those are not factors that the House can ignore.
I should at once make it clear that I do not propose to advise my hon. Friends to vote against the regulations. I welcome them as far as they go, although I do not believe that they go far enough. They are not just adjustments: some of them are—I want to make that plain—but some of them are quite significant. One of the difficulties of assessing these matters arises from the fact that the complexity of the whole financial system attached to the Child Support Act would drive anyone who tried to master it into a home for the bewildered. It is an extraordinarily difficult thing to come to grips with—I say that with some personal feeling as my lower mathematics creaks under the strain. My real criticism is that, although the regulations are specifically helpful on particular points, they do not soften the harsh outline of what is happening and will not affect or ameliorate the storm of protest.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Before I came down to the Chamber, I telephoned a constituent of mine who had received a letter outlining the six points that the Minister raised. I asked that very intelligent man whether he understood it and he told me that he had absolutely no clue. He said, "Tommy, I'd need a Philadelphia lawyer; what the hell's going on in the House of Commons?"

Mr. Dewar: I want to make it clear, first, that as a sort of retired refugee Scottish lawyer, I certainly do not offer myself as a Philadelphian version of the animal, although I agree with my hon. Friend that the complexity of the system is a problem.
The most significant of the proposals before us is the increase in protected income, which, according to the Government's own estimates, will mean that, in 1996–97, something like £60 million a year less will be gathered by the Child Support Agency. I have no doubt at all that the substitution of the £30 addition for the £8 addition will ensure that there is a much more healthy gap between net income less maintenance payments and what a family would receive if it were driven on to income support. I do not want to belittle that change; it is of some significance and it is welcome.
I am not so impressed by the remainder of what is on offer. It is interesting that the collection fee, which was much hated for very good reasons and of whose demise I thoroughly approve, has gone at what was put to me in a parliamentary answer as "negligible cost". I suspect that, if one went through the regulations, one could find further practical changes that would help the atmosphere.
The phasing applies more widely as a result of the changes and is extended over 18 months—at a price in revenue forgone of about £15 million. I accept that it is practical and sensible to suggest that the £44 carers element of the maintenance requirement should be reduced to £33 when the youngest child reaches the age of 11 or £22 when the youngest child reaches 14. I have some sympathy, though, with the point made about stepchildren, which may be a point of some contention in the implementation of the change.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major problems with the Act and the regulations is the position of second families, whether there are stepchildren or other children? A constituent of mine came to me saying that he had adopted a child but had thought about going back to the court to give it up because the burden on him and his new family was oppressive. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Child Support Agency has set itself up as judge and jury and that is a bad thing? Should not there be an independent appeals procedure? Will my hon. Friend also deal with the question of the clean break, because that is a major bone of contention for families?

Mr. Dewar: I will indeed come to those contentious and difficult issues. On the first point, I agree that language is important. I understand how convenient it is, but the very term "absent parent" causes great distress to parents—usually fathers—who cannot live with their families for all sorts of good and practical reasons but who maintain a very close personal interest and give as much support as they can. I must say that my own warmth of feeling for the Child Support Agency suffered somewhat when a very senior official of that agency started talking to me about the circumstances that would change when an absent partner "repartnered". I realise that that is a useful technical term, but it took me a little while to get up to speed on the phraseology.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend accept that the real problem is one of trust and that as long as anyone dealing with the agency believes that its members are operating on the basis of financial targets, the trust felt very strongly in relation to normal civil service procedures will be lacking?

Mr. Dewar: I understand that point, although I accept that certainty of payment is very important. I do not go along with the argument advanced in one intervention that it is satisfactory for people to say, "We always get on well together. When I have a few bucks, I pass them over."

Mrs. Dunwoody: I was talking about the staff of the agency.

Mr. Dewar: I may have misunderstood my hon. Friend's point. I shall certainly read what she said.
I was discussing the reduction in the £44 element of the maintenance requirement, which I described as sensible and practical; I think that it will also do something to reduce the resentment that is felt when an absent parent cannot understand why he should be paying what he regards as his ex-partner's income support. That particular change will be useful.
As I said, these are minor changes. Even more minor, and rather more puzzling, is that not recommended by the Select Committee—the reduction from 25p to 20p and then to 15p in the pound in the payment that has to be made from excess income once the maintenance payment has been exhausted. That will apply to those on rather higher incomes and is a concession to the better-off absent father. I must say that that would not be my priority given the problems faced by others in the system, especially those who have to care for a second family.
The package is not enough to restore confidence and encourage hope, although it has some useful points in it. The present settlement—if it is to be the final one—will be seen by many as unpleasantly like an effort to do the essential minimum to diffuse an awkward political situation. I entirely accept the Minister's word that that is not the intention, but if that is the perception it will be extremely damaging.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast majority of complaints that we have received are perfectly genuine complaints from people who not only pay their first wives but are trying to establish a new life with a second family? My hon. Friend the Minister used the words "and can pay". The sad thing is that many cannot pay. It is that element of the whole business that causes so much distress.

Mr. Dewar: The balance is extremely difficult to strike. I agree that one of the simple facts of dealing with matrimonial breakdown is that, very often, two into one does not go. If two families have to be supported, it is extremely difficult to do that from one income. As someone who once did matrimonial legal work, I am painfully aware of that fact.
I do not believe that the package goes far enough or that it strikes the right balance.

Ms Gordon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dewar: I give way for the last time. I must make progress.

Ms Gordon: My hon. Friend says that the package does not go far enough. Does he agree that the package should include abolition of the benefit penalty for women on income support who refuse to give authorisation to the agency, even if the agency is not satisfied? Is it not clear that, if a woman were to derive financial benefit for herself


and her child without feeling under any threat, she would willingly give the authorisation and that, if she did not, her opinion should be accepted?

Mr. Dewar: I am sensitive to the concerns that were expressed, particularly by people representing the women's movement, about the CSA when it was last set up. The number of people who have had a reduction, at the latest count, is 87; the House might say that it is 87 too many, but it is a small number.
This is a time when we have to be frank. I am not in favour of making it a voluntary principle that people co-operate or do not co-operate as they will. It is important that there is co-operation, but I should certainly like to see an end to the penalty if we can encourage co-operation in other ways, if that is possible. That takes us to other changes that I will certainly try to discuss briefly.
At Question Time, when referring to the Select Committee report, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), said that it was a good day for the Child Support Agency".—[Official Report, 6 December 1992; Vol. 234, c. 12.]
I am not sure whether there was a touch of triumph or, perhaps more realistically, relief in his voice, but it is unwise to use the Select Committee report as a cover for closing the file and toughing it out. For the Select Committee—hon. Members can speak for themselves—the package is a pick 'n mix—the Secretary of State's selection. Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but it is the Select Committee's intention to return to this matter, and it does not regard what was clearly an interim report as the final word on the matter.
I have never heard my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) so unfairly used by Ministers, as he and his colleagues have become a walking alibi for doing nothing more. That is not a particularly helpful approach to the problem.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dewar: I must make a little progress.

Mrs. Mahon: Will my hon. Friend give way on this point?

Mr. Dewar: I shall give way for the very last time.

Mrs. Mahon: Members of the Select Committee were not unanimous. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made some excellent points with which most hon. Members would agree.

Mr. Dewar: I take that point. I have read the minority report of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, which was printed.
In fairness, I should say a word or two about what should be done. At this stage, I have no intention of arguing at length the case for the points that I shall make, because many hon. Members want to speak. Also, there is to be some Opposition time during the coming week, and we hope to devote it to a debate on the Child Support Agency, on a motion which will allow us to test in the Lobby the opinion of the House about further change. That will also allow hon. Members to express more widely not only the anxiety that is felt by absent parents and other constituents but the hopes and concerns of parents with care, because both must properly be weighed in the balance.
The matters which should be considered are, first, the possibility of having a right of appeal to a review officer. In other systems—the Australian system is the one that we always mention—there is power to order a departure from the normal formula if specific circumstances tested against criteria defined in statute justify it. Of course, there are differences between the Australian and the British systems, but the similarities are much more striking and the purposes are similar. I must say—we should not shrug it off—that the Australians tell me that their system has been an important safety valve. Anyone who has dealt with the range of anger and dismay that have arisen over the present system will recognise the importance of a safety valve.
I do not want to pretend that such a safety valve will be a wide-open gate through which thousands will be able to go, but there are undoubtedly cases—all hon. Members can recall them from experience—in which factors directly related to the care of children are not taken into account because they cannot be taken into account. A review officer would be an investment for every one of us in terms of public confidence in the system.

Mr. Den Dover: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, but I must make progress, otherwise it is not fair to the House.
I will return to that matter in some detail if we have such a debate next week. That should be done, subject to discussion about the details.
Secondly, we should consider the clean-break problem. I accept entirely what the Minister has said—that one cannot have a clean break with one's children, that one should not have a clean break with one's children. Again, the Australian system—it is worth looking at it because it was implemented in stages in 1988 and 1989—has been running for four or five years, so there is a body of experience. Under that system, if parties are separating or divorcing and they have a formal agreement about, for example, the transfer of the matrimonial home or a major financial settlement, they can specify in that agreement, both parties being signatories, a reduction in the maintenance payments in recognition of that transfer. If that is registered and lodged with the Child Support Agency and it collectes the maintenance, it will observe that reduction. If one party subsequently goes on to benefit, it is still possible to vary that benefit, although within well-defined limits, the top variation being 25 per cent.
I am not standing on every detail of that system, and I am not suggesting that we lift it as it is and pop it into our legislation, but there is a strong case for considering what appears to have been a successful system and then looking at the monumental problem that we face and seeing whether there is some way in which we can learn and improve the position.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: I am going to plough on, if the House will bear with me. Hon. Members will be able to return to this matter—it is a checklist.
The third matter—I use my terms carefully—is the possibility of a disregard. I have always been attracted to the idea of a disregard, because there is one compelling argument, and that is that the system is supposed to be


about more money being collected from more parents for more children. On the figures available to us, that does not fit with the facts as they exist in the real world.
I recognise that there are competing arguments and that, for example, there is worry that an overgenerous disregard will make work less worth while. I recognise also that there are always problems with the financial implications of a disregard. That is why such matters should be thrashed out and discussed. They should be on the agenda for discussion, if only because my conscience does not live easily with the fact that I know—that the children who are most at risk economically, the children who are living with families who are dependent on income support, will almost certainly get no direct benefit at all from additional maintenance that is paid. Just because of that fact, such matters should be considered.
Those are meant to be three positive proposals for discussion. There is a very positive commitment on my part to consider the proposal on the right of appeal to a review officer. Of course children should be at the centre of the system—that is the point of the Child Support Act 1992, and that is why, in many ways, we have got the balance wrong. Children's interests must be balanced, but they should not be subordinated to the interests of absent parents, and certainly not to the interests of the taxpayer, the Treasury or whatever term the Minister likes to use. We all agree that it is difficult to get it right, but the confusion and the pain surely justify further movement.
I am fearful—I might sound a little like an academic constitutional lawyer—about what I see around me. A legal system must command respect. There is a danger that if disrespect grows to the point at which consent is withheld, we will bring everything into disrepute. We are near to doing that. Despite the changes that the House will approve tonight, I trust, we should not ignore the continuing and dangerous unhappiness that underlines and reinforces our duty to get the balance right. In answer to a question in Hansard, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Bury, North, said:
There are no plans for further change."—[Official Report, 1 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 578.]
In the light of the opinons expressed in every part of the House, I hope that the Minister will reconsider that position.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Many hon. Members wish to contribute, and short speeches would be greatly appreciated.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have had many contacts with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), including contacts in consistorial practice. He and I have both dealt with many of the tens of thousands of marriages that have broken down, and we know about the difficulty and the sadness. The children and both parties have to make sacrifices, as do succeeding parties.
It is strange that quotas are to be allotted to parents in certain circumstances. In my experience, these matters were dealt with by the courts, which saw the mother, the father and the children, knew the locality and

comprehended the circumstances. I cannot understand how a vast new bureaucracy in Belfast will be able to do that simply by asking ordinary people to fill up a form.

Mr. Stephen: On the issue of court orders, does my hon. and learned Friend recall that, under the old system before the child support legislation, the lawyers for the husband and wife would often put together a settlement which paid no regard at all to the interests of the taxpayer? It was often designed to place the maximum burden on the taxpayer. For example, it could transfer a house with a large mortgage, which the taxpayer was expected to pay. Does my hon. and learned Friend approve of that?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am glad to say that I am a Scottish lawyer, and that what my hon. Friend outlines does not apply in our civilised society. If it applies in England, that increases my contempt for the absurdity of its law.
We are dealing with the terrible sensitivities of former human relationships and with children. I was horrified by the Minister's index of what people receive. A person who has four children and has been married for four years gets tuppence, and so on. But I was even more horrified to hear that, as I understand it, the matter is to be taken out of the hands of the courts in April and put into the hands of a bureaucracy in Belfast. What do the bureaucrats know about these matters? On what possible basis can they be sensitive to the needs and realities of the children and the families?

Mr. Simon Burns: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend is not a member of my family, but I shall give way to him anyway.

Mr. Burns: I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend is not an English lawyer, but does he accept that a problem with the court maintenance system in England was that the people who suffered most were the child and the mother? That was because of the extremely low maintenance that was set, and in three out of four cases no maintenance was collected.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: That increases my contempt for the law of England, because it is certainly not my experience in the law of Scotland. My experience there is the reverse. I am glad to say that at least civilisation starts at the Tweed.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I think that my hon. and learned Friend will accept that no hon. Member is suggesting a return to the old system. Does he agree that the system under the Child Support Agency is at least as unjust as that which preceded it? A compromise, taking account of the hardship that the Child Support Agency logistics is causing, could allow the court to review, in appropriate cases, the special circumstances that I put to the Minister and to which I got only a standard response from the CSA. It had no relevance whatever to the individual circumstances of my constituent's concern.
Could we have a compromise arrangement, whereby the CSA remains but the regulations are amended to make sure that such injustices do not occur?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have had dozens of cases from the Child Support Agency. In one that came to me last week, the CSA had


decided to reduce the amount that the court had awarded. What right has the agency to do that? Are the people in the agency gods, lares et penates, who oversee our lives?
A committee of bureaucrats in Belfast is directing people in the courts who have seen the facts, the family, the children and the circumstances. Upon what possible basis do those bureaucrats across the sea have the effrontery to reduce the award that a judge and justice thought was appropriate? The award was not opposed by the other spouse. He came to me and told me that he was appalled and that the CSA had said that his contribution to his family should be reduced.
The whole development of this matter is offensive in principle and in application. As it develops, it will get more hubristic, more bureaucratic and more unfair. I cannot see any justification for the ordinary citizen not having a right to go to court. I have done tens of thousands of consistorial cases in the Scottish courts. Some are easy, and some are difficult, but the children are always the principal concern. I do not see how a bunch of bureaucrats can do that armed with a form.
I cannot fill up forms, and I am supposed to be a Queen's counsellor. How is Mrs. Snodgrass to fill up a form? When it has been completed, some bureaucrat will read it and say, "You will not get this or that." For the Minister to rabbit on about £42 for this and £42 for something else is totally insensitive. We are talking about families and children; we are not talking about buying postal orders and paying taxes.
I find the Government's whole approach grotesquely offensive. We are dealing with children and families, with human frailty and human difficulties. Such issues cannot be dealt with by a committee or on a form, and I disapprove of that completely. Let us ensure—let the Government be warned that I shall try to ensure—that the matter is left to the courts, who comprehend it. At least they are in reason and in knowledge of the locality, the families and the relationships. I plead, please, for humanity.

8 pm

Mr. Frank Field: I shall be brief. There is good reason why today's debate will sound to many outsiders as though we are set on representing the views of some men against their families. That response is understandable, but it is not adequate.
Many of our male constituents feel that the ground under their feet has shifted markedly over the past 15 years. One in five of all males are now unemployed. If they are unskilled, the figure is one in three. Those males feel disfranchised. The lack of a wage packet means that they no longer feel head of the household; they no longer feel equal to their partners, and they find it difficult to carry out their role as fathers. There is disquiet on those grounds.
There is disquiet on other grounds too, and the Government are even more directly responsible for them than for the unemployment figures. Under the stewardship of the present Government, until the advent of the Child Support Agency, we witnessed the near-collapse of the collection of maintenance for those mothers who are on income support and who were on supplementary benefit. The proportion has halved.
The word went out, therefore, that the Government were not interested in ensuring that those on benefits also received maintenance. That trend continued for 15 years. Many males will have made arrangements with second

families which they will be unable to sustain if an Act is introduced retrospectively forcing them to pay a large proportion of their income towards their first families.
The Government have to approach the debate with more humility than usual. Many of those people who thought that they were totally free to make new arrangements with their second families now find that, late in the day, the Government have changed the ground rules under which they are to be judged, and the grounds on which they will have to pay. That is one reason for humilty, but there are also others.
The Minister was generous in his selective quoting from the Select Committee report. If I had introduced the debate tonight, I would have made similar partisan use of that report. However, Ministers will not have forgotten that there is unlikely to be a vote tonight. It is the only night this week when hon. Members do not have to stay, yet we have a presence in the Chamber far in excess of what we normally have at this stage when there is a three-line Whip, especially in social security debates. It gives those on the Treasury Bench some idea of the temper of the House tonight.
As the Minister quoted from the report, I should mention that the Select Committee considered the regulations to be the most far-reaching change since the Attlee settlement of 1945. That means that, if the Government are wise, tonight's debate will be the beginning and not the end of the reform of the Child Support Agency.
The bigger the reform, the more important it is for us to listen carefully to what our constituents tell us and for the Government to take into account what we relate in the Chamber and in private to Ministers, so that the Act can be reformed to make it workable in the way that we all hoped it would be.
Any major change means a resettlement between the three parties that have an interest—taxpayers, first families, second, and perhaps third, families. There are five reforms which the Government will have to consider sooner of later, and the sooner they consider them, the more credit they will get. More importantly, not only will our constituents feel that the House of Commons listens to them, but the Act will win widespread support rather than hostility.
First, the agency is the only body in existence to look at what is happening to family budgets. It has all the details. Despite the attempts of our constituents, we often get an incomplete picture. May we have some information as to the income ranges with which people manage with their second families?
Secondly, the Select Committee backed away from the idea of raising the clean break settlements. We could not get agreement on that, and we hoped that the courts would rule in a way that would have broken open the whole debate. It is not good enough to rely on the argument that some people have managed to hand over a house which is largely a debt for taxpayers to service. Such matters can be considered, justified and calculated.
It is monstrous for those who have made a large settlement—and often acquired debts in order to make that settlement—to be penalised, particularly as the whole House believes that it is a good thing to own houses.
It is absurd that, despite some adjustments to the formula, in all circumstances it now pays for a man to put his first wife and children out of their home and to sell it, and, if there is anything left from the settlement, to buy


something very much smaller, and then for the man to get the biggest, most expensive house he can, as that is taken into account in calculating his income.
It cannot make sense to have a formula that puts mothers and children at risk of homelessness and for single males, perhaps less single if they have new partners, to occupy the most expensive premises they can possibly find.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman will concede that it is not solely a decision for the man at the time of separation. It would require a court to force a mother and children out of their house in the circumstances that he has described.

Mr. Field: One of the reasons why the courts stand convicted tonight, although clearly in Scotland they have a much better system, is that the courts have generally worked in favour of men and against women and children. It was the men that were represented by lawyers and, generally speaking, women and children were not. If they wanted time to push the court around, the men's lawyers got the proceedings adjourned. There are certainly many complaints from women and children about how the procedures work. I have had no request from women and children in my constituency to go back to the old English court system to settle disputes.
Thirdly, because we wanted the formula adjusted so that those towards the lower end of the scale would be able to keep more of their income and thereby maintain their incentive to work, we plumped for a big increase in the amount of income that people could keep when the formula had been applied.
But it is clear from two Question Times, let alone tonight, that travel-to-work expenses are massively important for some of our constituents, particularly if they live in what are called satellite towns or areas and travel far. Again, the Child Support Agency will have more information on that than any other body in the country. If other constituents are like my own, they will have told the Child Support Agency what those fares are. It is important that that information should be published.
Fourthly, it is meanness on stilts to say that, because it takes 13 or 14 weeks for the Child Support Agency to send out an assessment, a person should begin the arrangement in arrears. We hope that the arrangement will work and work fairly, and to the advantage of all parties concerned. To begin by having to pay off a debt is, in any circumstances, difficult, but it is doubly difficult if the brown envelope contains a statement saying that a person's disposable net income for his or her second household will be considerably less than it was hitherto. Surely we must bear in mind the Select Committee's recommendation that people should not have to begin the new arrangement with a large debt around their necks.
My last point is one on which I have changed my view. When we first debated the matter in the House, I argued against the first family on benefit being able to keep part of the money paid in maintenance. I thought that it was unfair between those mothers, the fathers of whose children are unknown or cannot be traced, those who are widowed and those, the fathers of whose childen have been found and are paying over money. There were grounds of equity there.
There were also other considerations. I do not approve of the attitude that has gained currency that somehow it is

our responsibility in the first place to pay income support and that any money that fathers pay should be a bonus, rather than a relief of taxpayers who have been paying up to that point. The failure to chase people for maintenance payments, which I have highlighted in questions during the past 15 years, was an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
But although those points stand, when I put forward my views about grounds of equity in the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) simply said, "That's life." She said that life is often unfair, but because it is unfair to some does not mean that all women and children should be disadvantaged.
The Child Support Agency now needs above everything else large numbers of mothers and children to speak up in favour of it. That could be done quite cheaply with a small disregard. Therefore, my last suggestion—

Mr. George Mudie: As my hon. Friend is an influential person, and as the Minister seemed to frame his concessions with my hon. Friend in mind, will he consider adding a sixth point to his list on the business of phasing in?
The Minister has made a concession on phasing in, but he has limited it to certain people. He does not seem to have accepted the general principle and the fact of life that people do not exist in a vacuum, and that, when one relationship breaks down, it is entirely natural for people to get on with their lives and build other relationships, and perhaps other debts and financial commitments. For the Child Support Agency to drop on a person, whatever his or her domestic circumstances, at a point in the future, completely ignoring financial commitments that that person has genuinely entered into, is most unfair.

Mr. Field: I am grateful for that invervention. The reason I will not disappoint my hon. Friend when I say that I shall not add his point to my list is that it is in the report, although it has not been fully endorsed by Ministers tonight.
They are the outlines of an agenda that I hope the Select Committee will consider in its second report—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Field: In fairness to other hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall not give way. I am about to bring my contribution to a conclusion.
I hope that that will act as a basis for an agenda for what will be the Select Committee's second report. That itself will not be the final report that the Select Committee will need to bring to the House.
I said at the beginning that I thought that this was the most significant change in the way that people have had to behave toward one another since the Attlee settlement of the great 1945–50 Government. The bigger the change, the more important it is that we are sensitive to how the reform works.
It is important tonight that Ministers win this and other victories against the Treasury, so that the Treasury's mean-minded policy in trying to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement to a more satisfactory level does not put at stake the principle of the Act. The force of interventions will have shown Ministers that hon. Members will not go away, and that, if further reform is not forthcoming, the Act will be at risk.

Mr. Simon Burns: Listening to the debate reinforces my view that the vast majority of hon. Members wholeheartedly support the principle that fathers should pay for the support of their children when they are financially able so to do, and for the state to maintain support through the benefit system when fathers, for whatever reason, unfortunately do not have the necessary income or are not able to do so because they are in receipt of benefit.
Since the Act was brought into operation in April 1993, there has been much concern about certain aspects of the operation of the formula, but not the principle behind the Act. I trust that even after this debate that almost bipartisan support for the principle will be maintained because it is essentially the right principle: parents should be financially responsible for their children.
On the other side of the coin, it is interesting that we hear little about the mothers who, all too often before April last year, suffered a significant drop in their standard of living or found it difficult to make ends meet on the benefit system because far too many fathers had simply abandoned them without meeting their financial responsibilities.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Burns: I shall not give way because there is little time and many hon. Members wish to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I will give way once and no more. I give way to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Cryer: The Act was presented to the House on the principle that fathers should be responsible for their children and that non-paying fathers should be made to pay. No one disagreed with that, but that principle has been set aside and fathers who are paying and who are exercising responsibility are now being subjected to further burdens and being hounded by what many people consider to be "Lilley' s Gestapo".

Mr. Burns: I reject the last part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I was about to deal with the first part.
There is an impression among responsible fathers who are being asked to pay through the Child Support Agency that they are the soft target and that the Act is not being used to target absent parents who have abandoned their responsibilities. I can understand them thinking that. They are an angry group of people and the more the point is made, the more acceptable it becomes. With respect, I urge the hon. Gentleman and others to look at the facts. It is unfair to say that the agency is ignoring irresponsible fathers who have never paid anything. They are, rightly, being pursued. Perhaps the CSA, or we as Members of Parliament, have failed to convey that it is not a lone attack on responsible fathers; the CSA is also going for fathers who pay nothing. I urge Opposition Members to study the facts before perpetuating a myth.
I welcome the regulations because they respond to the Select Committee's report with proposals which seek to alleviate some of the problems that fathers face. I welcome also the phasing-in arrangements, the increased level of protected income and changes to the additional reduction rate. However, my constituents have raised a number of

points, which I suspect are not unique to Chelmsford, and those matters ought to be considered once the effect of the regulations on existing and future assessments is known.
The precise aim of and philosophy behind paying for the upkeep of children should be identified. Is the purpose —as I believe it should be—to meet the cost of looking after a child or children at an acceptable level? If so, just because an individual's income increases each year, perhaps through salary rises, it does not necessarily follow that further significant amounts of his income should be taken to pay towards the upkeep of his children. While it is important that a sufficient amount is provided to provide care to an acceptable level, thereafter money should not automatically be taken from the father according to a sliding scale.
One constituency case causes me particular concern. It involves a man who fathered three children by his first marriage, and who is now remarried and in work. His first wife has also remarried. My constituent and his second wife look after two of the children by his first marriage, while his first wife cares for the third. Her second husband has been out of work for five years and one might deduce that, whatever the situation in the employment market, that husband has no intention of getting a job.

Mrs. Llin Golding: Oh!

Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady makes a noise from a sedentary position. That accusation is made not by me, but by my constituent and his second wife, who look after two of the children from his first marriage but are required to pay the carer's allowance of £44 through the CSA to the children's mother. I question whether my constituent and his second wife should be required to do that.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), other hon. Members and I have raised in parliamentary questions the issue of commuter costs. That is not special pleading as such, because usually only the belts around metropolitan areas have a commuter system of the sort found in London. Such a system is not common to all parts of the country. A monthly season ticket to commute to work from Chelmsford to London exceeds the monthly cost of a £30,000 non-endowment mortgage. That significant take from an individual's income, more so than an average figure, should be borne in mind.
Can anything be done about fathers or mothers who deliberately make themselves unemployed to avoid being required to pay child support so that they may contact the CSA to claim that support from their former partner? I appreciate that in some circumstances there can be substantial disadvantages in making oneself intentionally unemployed, but in others that is not the case. It is particularly irksome to a working couple to be traced by the CSA because a former partner of one of them has deliberately taken himself or herself out of the employment market, either to avoid paying child support or to make themselves ineligible for it.
There is widespread concern about the time taken by the agency to reply to cases raised by hon. Members and to members of the public who have complained or challenged assessments. I was heartened by the written reply that I received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, saying that measures would be taken to speed up the CSA's response. However, on the assumption that the regulations will be approved, in the short term an even greater burden will be placed on the agency. I urge my hon. Friend the


Under-Secretary to do all that he can to ensure that assessments and other matters are dealt with by the CSA as quickly as possible, even if that means taking on extra staff on a temporary basis. It is unfair to those who are assessed to have to wait an inordinate amount of time because of bureaucratic processing.
All those aspects are of vital importance to our constituents. I trust that the regulations will make a genuine difference, and I suspect that they will. However, we may have to keep a watching brief on other aspects of the agency's activities, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said at Social Security Question Time on Monday.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: To the extent that the regulations will make a difference, I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that they should be supported in the Lobby this evening. Nevertheless, I do not want the Government or the Under-Secretary to go away thinking that will be the end of the story.
The regulations are detailed, and the Under-Secretary described—in his usual competent way—the changes that they will make. However, he has not begun to address the anguish, anxiety and concern that is evident the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman has any time to respond to the debate, he must give an indication this evening of the Government's intentions after the regulations are introduced.
I listened carefully to the reasoned speech by the hon. Member for Garscadden, which made a positive contribution to the debate. I should be grateful to him and to the official Opposition if they would make use of a valuable Supply day further to debate the subject, for that would greatly benefit the House.
Even though short speeches have been made, many other hon. Members will not have an opportunity tonight to represent their constituents' interests in the way that they would like. In fact, given the tight confines of the regulations, it might not be in order for certain points to be made—but the Under-Secretary has not made any difficulty about that.
I emphasise that the issue will not go away, and the House should not allow it to do so. It must be raised again, by the Select Committee, the House itself, or as a result of public pressure—which is increasing, judging from the volume of post on the subject that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House are receiving. The power to make necessary changes resides in the hands of the Under-Secretary and the Department.
I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is here, and appreciate his presence. We are all struggling to try to get an appropriate response, which the regulations do not provide. The Minister knows me well enough to understand that I do not make rash or casual threats. I do not want it to be put by way of threat, but there has been much discussion across the Floor of the House, with everybody agreeing to the principle of the Act.
I agree with that. In Scots law, parents have always had financial as well as other legal liabilities and duties to their offspring. That has always been the case, and was so before 1991, when the Act was introduced. I say this carefully and

urgently. There are circumstances in which I would recommend to my colleagues that support for the principle of the Act should be withdrawn if the implementation of the Act is not substantially changed. It would be a serious matter for the Minister if support were withdrawn, and for Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred to the system that must be put in place. It has a 15-year time span—or longer. If it is to be responsible and respond to the needs, it must survive changes of Government. The Government must take that into account, because if they do not change the practice in a way that is acceptable to the House, were there to be a change of Government, which, I presume, will happen eventually, but goodness knows when—that can be debated on another day and is in the hands of the electorate, not just here—he has a responsibility as a Minister to ensure that a system is in place that will withstand the test of time and changes of Government. I assure him that it is a fact that he does not have such a system.
I took part in the consideration of the Bill in 1991. The House gave it quite thorough scrutiny. I was not on the Standing Committee, but many concerns were raised about the agency and were dealt with in the way in which the Government introduced the Bill. There was much pressure and worry about mothers being forced to divulge. The Government have dealt with that, but the circumstances have changed dramatically since then. The element of retrospection is a far greater problem in practice than I ever aniticipated. That problem was referred to earlier.
The selection of the Government's target of trying to recover £530 million in the first year of operation, against the background of the fact that they have professional staff who are on performance-related contracts, is one of the most difficult things for people to understand. The people who are being hit by this legislation believe that it is by people who are making their own pay. I do not believe that that is the case. I consider the people who are running the agency to be professionals who are doing the best they can, although that may not be everybody's experience.
There is real concern that the selection of the target of £530 million in the first year was a bridge too far. The transitional arrangements were inadequate. Something has been done about that, but not enough. The whole question of the way that the Act is impinging on second families is completely contrary to natural justice.
Because of the pressures of the Act, I have constituents who are threatening to emigrate, stop work or walk away from their second families. There are also tales of suicide. I do not know how much truth there is in them, but some of the newspaper reports are a cogent body of evidence that cannot and must not be ignored by the House and the Government.
The simple fact, in my experience, is that second families are being asked to pay amounts that they simply cannot afford. One of my cases last week was of a father whose offspring are in Plymouth. He is desperately trying to keep a relationship between himself and his two young children. There is no way in which the current formula can take account of the travel costs involved in seeing his children. He has had to sever the relationship with his children or borrow money from his parents to maintain it. It is a nightmare. It is a mess. There is no administrative machinery available to exercise any element of discretion.
The hon. Members for Birkenhead and for Garscadden listed five or six suggestions. I shall add a couple. In the


longer term, if one put money into a proper system of conciliation, that would be a better way of saving Govermment money. Child care services may be technically out of order in the debate on social security, but those are two important parts where social investment would reduce the long-term costs of the breakdown of families that we see in this country. A whole series of issues could and should be raised, such as getting a proper appeals system and dealing with capital settlements. A raft of things must be considered.
When the Minister comes to reply, if he gets any time, he must address the question of the future. Tonight's regulations are welcome as far as they go. I will recommend that my colleagues support them on that basis. But if he says, "This far and no further," he is storing up trouble for himself, and deservedly so.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Despite my hon. Friend the Minister's best intentions, some of my constituents still view the CSA as a cross between the Court of Star Chamber and the Spanish inquisition. They see their second marriages at stake, and the actions of the agency not only burning a hole in their pockets but threatening or destroying their relationships and jobs. We all have a mass of cases. I have mine here tonight. I shall refer only to two.
First, a car worker in my constituency came to see me a week or so ago and said, "Must I really give up my job because of the proposals?" I found that distressing. He was complaining about the scale and the speed of change that had been brought about by the Act. Secondly, a newly remarried man told me that the enforced change in his circumstances was already undermining his second marriage. Again, I found that a distressing case.
I must tell my hon. Friend that I have had more letters, more approaches and telephone calls on this issue this Parliament than on any other. I voted for the Act. I approve of the principles, and I want to see it work. I welcome the new provisions, which, in my view, are fairer. They might persuade that car worker in my constituency to hold his job. They might help the second marriage of the other gentleman to whom I referred. I question whether the relief package—perhaps we should call it a transitional relief package—is enough. I hope that it is.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said to my hon. Friend, "Please do not regard this as the final settlement." We must regard it as the next stage in the evolution of the CSA. I am mindful of the fact that, tomorrow, 300 aggrieved parents will attend a meeting in Leicester, that there is an action committee in my constituency, run by a Mr. Klenk, and that marches are being organised. There is a body of opposition from a large proportion of the population. When marches are organised and there is that level of activity, as we saw over some of the legislation in the last Parliament, we ignore it at our peril.
I do not wish to detain the House for long; I shall refer to a few points of particular concern, some of which have not been raised. The first is the intrusive and unsympathetic nature of telephone calls from the CSA to families, frequently at night or when they are with their families at tea time. At times they are rung at the office and it is made

perfectly clear that it is the CSA. Those actions are damaging the reputation of the CSA at the very least, and are certainly damaging families and job prospects.
Hon. Members have asked for an appeals procedure. I must say that I consider the CSA's powers too final. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) expressed concern about the removal of the courts' powers; I understand that move, because I think that the system was breaking down, but my goodness, the CSA seems all-powerful now. My hon. Friend the Minister must think seriously about some form of appeals procedure.
Then there is the whole issue of former spouses having access to personal and financial details. Until the CSA came along. I thought that an Englishman's home was his castle; the agency, however, seems to have powers similar to those obtained by Customs and Excise over VAT. I find that alarming: the data protection provisions are too weak, and it is threatening second marriages. Something must be done.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Surely it is wrong in principle for the operation of the CSA to force a second wife whose divorced husband is perfectly capable of meeting his obligations to his children to give all the details of her income, or of shares that she possesses. The present Government, after all, introduced separate taxation for husbands and wives—which I think is absolutely right. The information is given to the first wife, and the income concerned may well support not only her and her child, but her second—unemployed—husband.

Mr. Tredinnick: That might have been a planted question. I have already referred similar cases to my hon. Friend the Minister. There is a general feeling that second wives are supporting first wives: I raised the matter in a parliamentary question before Christmas. For a number of reasons, a highly undesirable "arcing" of cash payments is taking place between first and second families.

Ms Gordon: Not only is confidentiality being breached because the agency is able to inquire into the financial affairs of a second partner; it even reaches for information about the financial affairs of the second partner's children. If grandparents have invested money and some interest is due, that can be taken into account as well. I think it is outrageous.

Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend the Minister is receiving a clear message from all quarters in the House that people are very unhappy about that aspect. I hope that he will deal with it when he winds up.
We have heard much about the "clean break". I may not be as sophisticated as some, but I always thought that a clean break meant precisely that, I have subsequently learnt that children's interests are paramount, that the old system was not working as well as I had supposed, and that adjustments were necessary. It strikes me as strange, however, that a visitor to my surgery should tell me, "I pay for the clothes and the holidays, repair the car and do a host of other things, but that is not taken into account."
I respect my hon. Friend, and recognise the work that he has put into this, but it is all very fine to say that it is too complicated to consider a range of individual points—travel costs, for instance; he must consider such matters. If we are to do away with the courts and impose a new agency, we cannot operate such an unsophisticated system.
The attitude of the CSA staff is of concern, too. Generally, when we telephone a Minister's private office —or when an experienced secretary or research assistant is briefed to do it—we are given a courteous and prompt response.
I must tell the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State, however, that several experienced secretaries—and one or two hon. Members who are not present—have told me that the response of CSA top management is less than forthcoming: in fact, it is downright insolent. Those people had better wake up to the fact that we are elected representatives. When we raise issues, they had better listen.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: When people refer to a "clean break", they often misunderstand the situation. What is really at issue in the event of a clean break between husband and wife may be a nominal, or even significant, maintenance order in favour of children. Because people think of a clean break as referring to the entire family, they may feel hard done by when the matter is reopened by the CSA.

Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend has made his point effectively, and I agree with him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spoke eloquently about travel costs. My hon. Friend the Minister explained why it was better to bundle the separate charges and requirements into a single package, but I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
My constituency is in the middle of England: people commute from such areas as Hinckley to London. We are not that far away—only about 100 miles—but the rail fare is very expensive. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford provided another dramatic illustration of this argument. Such factors cannot be ignored: commuting and other travel costs are astronomical. One constituent told me, "I love my little girl dearly, but it is costing me a fortune to go to see her. I can no longer manage it." Something is wrong, and my hon. Friend the Minister must deal with it.
The Act is good in principle, but it needs a good deal of polishing. The measures announced tonight will go some way towards alleviating some of the problems, and I welcome them; but Ministers should not go away believing that they have done their job. This must be seen to be one stage in the process of getting the CSA right.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that the Minister will not assume from the fact that we are not voting against these measures that any hon. Member receives them with approbation. I am sorry that we are not voting against them: I think that this part of the legislation should be junked entirely. It is defective; it was rushed into operation without being thought through; and the pressure on those operating it is such that they are not exercising the highest standards.
One of the dangers of this unfortunate legislation is that many people now feel genuinely and deeply angry about what is happening to them. Trust is very important—

people must believe that the Government, in particular, are dealing with them fairly, and there is now deep unease in the population.
I have encountered many such cases in my constituency and have attended two or three exciting and lively meetings of people suffering from the CSA's attentions, but I do not want the House to run away with the idea that only the male of the species is suffering. The ineptitude of the whole business was revealed by a letter from a constituent, who wrote:
In April 1993 I applied to the CSA, because I wasn't receiving any maintenance for my two children, then aged 8 and 5. At about the same time I moved in with my new partner after being on my own for 3½ years. A while ago my new partner was sent a form from the CSA, as he has a child, aged 12 … On Saturday 22.1.94 we both received the outcome of our cases. Mine having taken 9½ months.
We were shocked … at the outcome. I am to receive £2·20 a week for my two children from my ex-husband, who is working full-time and has no second family, and my partner is to pay out £88·79 a week for one child, whilst he has to support us as well.
My ex-husband is self-employed and is apparently showing accounts that don't compare with his lifestyle.
The woman went on in considerable detail to point out what happened to her.
Another woman instituted proceedings for divorce on 20 April 1993, then made an application to the Child Support Agency for an assessment against her husband on 7 June 1993. That assessment related to two children. She heard nothing in reply for some time and eventually ascertained that the inquiry form had not been sent to her husband until 9 September 1993. She eventually received an assessment on 30 October. She was informed that it would be backdated but, because of the delays, her husband is now in arrears of £1,300. As no agreement or order was in force in respect of the children before April 1993, the lady has had no support whatever from her estranged husband. Because of the Child Support Act, she was also unable to apply to the court for an order for interim maintenance.
Those two cases sum up starkly the fact that the machinery simply is not working. All hon. Members can produce examples of cases in which people are suffering hardship and unhappiness and are being put through the wringer in an extremely short period. It is destroying them and I am genuinely frightened about what will happen to the children of both sets of partners. Numerous people complain to me that they will be forced to sell their house and tell me of the pressure on their relationships—those relationships may have been fragile, but a form of stability existed. No matter how the CSA's efforts are justified by the Minister, they are putting so much pressure on people that not only previous partnerships but existing partnerships are directly threatened.
I received a long, sad letter from a woman in the constituency of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), saying that she had written to me because her Member of Parliament seemed unable to take up her case. She was deeply concerned about the mental health of her new partner and described in detail what had happened to him since he received an assessment for amounts which he knew that he could not meet. That is the reality.
I am also horrified at the number of people in high-stress jobs who come to me because the CSA's actions are having a direct effect on their jobs. If people in the police force get into debt, their jobs are at risk because they have broken the terms of their contract.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): indicated dissent.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is no use the Secretary of State shaking his head. If he does not know the effect of his legislation, he should ask somebody to tell him. I have raised the matter with the Home Secretary, who wrote to me saying that it was a matter for the chief constables of each individual force. I have received no guarantee that the CSA's efforts will not cause policemen to appear before a disciplinary board. Indeed, two or three of them have already resigned and I know of at least two more in the same position. Firemen are experiencing similar problems. A social scientist would find the effects of the legislation revealing because those in stressful professions, including Members of Parliament, seem to have second and third marriages.
The implementation of the Act has a direct effect not only on adults but on children. It affects the children's relationships with their parents, the amount of money available for the children and the atmosphere in both partnerships at every level.
I do not wish to go on for ever but I believe that this legislation was not put on the statute book to improve conditions for children. If I believed that it was wholly devoted to improving the lot of the children of divorced and divided families, it would have my wholehearted support and I would not criticise it in any circumstances. I believe that it was put on the statute book for just one reason, and many of my constituents have the same view. It was to obtain money for the Treasury. It does not help those whom it purported to help and should be taken back to square one so that the Secretary of State can start again. He has got it all wrong. Why will he not admit that and at least try to put it right?

Mr. James Couchman: Like so many other Members, I supported this legislation enthusiastically when it was introduced because of the number of women who had been to my surgeries who were desperate because they could get no satisfaction on maintenance from the court. They were also desperate to get their wriggling absent husbands, ex-husbands or partners to pay something towards their children's maintenance.
Having supported the legislation, however, I am desolated by the effects of the agency. Some hon. Friends have complained about the agency's attitude in answering them on the telephone or by letter. They were lucky to have had an answer at all. I have received no answers to letters that I sent to the agency as long ago as October. Constituents who come to see me complain that the agency simply will not answer their questions, either by telephone or by letter; all it does is send those draconian assessments. Even when a response by the agency is received, it is belated and does not solve the problems that have been put to it.
Like many other Members, I have many commuters in my constituency. It costs some £2,000 a year to travel the 30 miles from my constituency to central London, although many thousands of my constituents do so. Many of them do not have well-paid jobs and the fare represents a substantial proportion of their income, once the cost of housing has been taken into account. To be forced to decide whether to travel to work or feed the family is a stark choice indeed.
The complaints that I receive are the same as those received by many other Members—that no account is taken of the many essential household bills such as gas, electricity, water, insurance, mortgage arrears and council tax. None is taken into account, yet they are all essential expenses faced by every household. Another peculiarity is that only 50 per cent. of pension contributions is allowable as an expense. Many people have no alternative to making pension contributions; indeed, the Government encouraged them to do so.
What worries me is the attitude of the Child Support Agency. Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I am particularly concerned that reviews of decisions take for ever. I welcome these changes, as far as they go. However, I should have liked to ask the Minister, during the course of his speech, to answer one very simple question. I am not absolutely clear about whether the changes will apply to all those who have been subject to assessments up to the present. I should be grateful for an answer on that matter.
If the changes are applicable to everyone who has been assessed hitherto, they will make a substantial change in the case of my constituent Mr. L, whose assessment for one child increased the £10·75 a week payable under a court maintenance order to £122 a week, even though he has a second family. Will he be helped? His assessment included the reimbursement of his travelling expenses. That amount was added to his income in arriving at the assessment. He asked in October for a review of his case. Goodness knows when it will take place. In the meantime, paying £122 a week, he is building up enormous arrears. I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that such arrears must not be allowed to get out of hand simply because the agency is not carrying out the reviews that it should be undertaking.
I am worried by the fact that many ordinary, decent folk are harassed and hounded by the agency. In the case of at least one person, I wrote personally and urgently to the Secretary of State because I was so worried that she would do something desperate as a result of demand from the agency. There must be a taming-down. The CSA is too mechanistic in its whole approach. There is no sensitivity whatsoever towards the first, second or any other family.
Like the constituents of many hon. Members who have spoken and, no doubt, of many who have yet to speak, people in my constituency are darkly suspicious that the main motive of the agency is to save income support money. It is no coincidence that every constituent from whom I have heard pays some form of maintenance. Court maintenance assessments are often hopelessly low, and people are receiving new assessments. I have received not a single letter from among the absent fathers whom I hoped would be caught by this legislation. I am sure that that is no coincidence.

Mr. John Heppell: I agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) in that he seems to be yet another advocate of doing away altogether with the Child Support Agency. The legislation was brought in hastily and for the wrong reasons. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that there were two reasons for the introduction of the Act. The first was moral indignation. Here we had the first sign of the Tories' "back to basics"


policy. It may be that in this case the moral indignation was justified. In any event, it was fuelled by the Treasury in an attempt to cut back on the social security budget.
The proposals contained nothing that would help children. There was nothing to reduce child poverty or to protect the family, as the figures tend to prove. Of the £530 million being collected, only £50 million—less than one tenth—goes to the family or to the children; the rest goes directly to the Treasury. I try, and I hope that others will try, to avoid taking the moral line of those who seek new scapegoats. The unemployed man living with the first wife is now being paid by the second wife for the children. What we have here is an attempt to find other scapegoats. The truth is that the situation must be looked at in a sensible but compassionate way.
It would be very difficult to disagree with the principles of what the Government proposed in the first place, but it is very easy to disagree with the practice, with what has acutally been happening. Many of the constituents who come to see me are not just angry or mad, but desperate. They are desperate because they have nowhere else to go. They come to me, but I cannot give them any advice. They put their wage slips in front of me and show me their expenditure figures. They are in a Mr. Micawber situation: their expenditure after CSA payments is greater than their income. They ask what they can do because they clearly cannot pay, but I have no answer.
The CSA does not take into account people's real needs. The main problem is the lack of flexibility and the use of a crude and unsophisticated formula. Under the formula, children of a new relationship are not considered to be natural children and so do not count. In other words, stepchildren and adopted children are presumably unnatural children. The CSA considers people's protected income, but not their ability to pay. There is no point in having a protected income if it is worked out according to the formula.
I was not as impressed as my party's spokesman about the significance of the proposed changes. Indeed, everyone to whom I have spoken about them says that they are not significant and I do not believe that they have made a real difference to the majority of our constituents. I shall not vote against the proposals because they may help individuals, but they do not help the majority.
When I first read about the changes, I was impressed for a moment because I thought that something radical might happen. The leaflet, "Proposed changes to child support maintenance", published by the Department of Social Security states that the formula
takes account of the income of both parents, by allowing for tax, national insurance
—we knew about that—
and essential expenses such as rent or mortgage costs.
I also knew about the rent or mortgage costs, but I wondered what other "essential expenses" were taken into account. I thought that the best thing to do would be to ring the CSA and I did so today—not once, but five times.
The first four times I reached an answering machine which told me that the lines were busy. On the fifth occasion, I spoke to a young woman who was very helpful. I explained that I wanted to know about the "essential expenses" other than rent or mortgage costs which were taken into account. Were there one, two or three additional expenses? The truth is that not one other item is

considered, which makes nonsense of the changes. It means that the formula is dealing not with reality but with theoretical sums. The use of the formula to decide what they should be paying is leading people into despair and I probably have a better example of that in my constituency than anyone in the Chamber.
One of my constituents committed suicide, although I hesitate to refer to him. His family have my greatest sympathy and I do not want to add to their grief, but I believe that I should be failing others in a similar situation if I did not mention his case. The day after receiving notification from the CSA that his contribution was to be increased by 300 per cent., Graham Clay was found hanging at Newstead abbey. Even if the coroner was not prepared to say so, I am convinced that he hanged himself because he had nowhere to turn.
I ask very little. If the Government are not prepared to scrap the CSA, will they please provide some method of appeal? Will they provide desperate people such as Graham Clay with somewhere to go where their needs will not be assessed according to a formula and where some discretion will be involved in assessing their payments, where they will be considered as individuals and not as numbers?
I am not saying that the CSA is unsympathetic. We cannot blame the Child Support Agency, because we are telling it to work to the formula and if it works to the formula it will seem as though it does not care. I have one request. The Australian scheme gives a right of appeal from the Australian agency. Let us have that right so that people can be considered as individuals. Even at this late stage, let us try to put a human face on the CSA.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I begin by congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends in Government on listening to my views and those of many other hon. Members about the implementation of the Child Support Act 1991. I welcome the changes that are before the House tonight. I think that they demonstrate that we have a listening Government who are prepared to take action and make changes when the need has been proved. I also congratulate the Social Security Select Committee on its report, which made a valid contribution to the debate on the subject.
However, I think that it is important that the changes do not undermine the principle behind the Act, which many of us, including agencies such as the National Council for One Parent Families, supported and still support. It is important that we ensure that what was previously a poor system becomes better. The principle is that both parents should be responsible for supporting their children, even when they split up. The taxpayer should have to help only where parents do not have the means to support their children. Sadly, before the establishment of the agency, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, nearly 1 million lone parents and their children were dependent on income support.
I attended the Lobby meeting against the Child Support Act and the Child Support Agency that took place in the Grand Committee Room on 2 December 1993. I sat on the platform and listened to the representations that were made. As promised, I discussed the many arguments that were made to me with Ministers in the Department of Social Security.
One point that struck me forcibly was that there seemed to be a predominance of police officers, firemen and members of the armed forces in the audience. When I queried that, I was told that they were there because they were extremely concerned about the implications of the Child Support Agency's financial demands on them, because those demands might cause them to run into debt and thereby affect their job security. That point was mentioned by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I should be most grateful if the Minister would kindly clarify the Government's position in relation to the CSA's claims on those people's income when he replies to the debate, because it will be helpful for all of us to know the correct position on that understandable anxiety.
At the meeting, I made it clear that I too had reservations about the aspect of implementation, especially in two respects. First, I was concerned about the impact on a family budget of an immediate increased claim upon it and, secondly, I was not sure that the formula levels relating to the protected income went far enough. Therefore, I am pleased that those issues and others have been tackled by the Government.
During the meeting on 2 December, a number of major misunderstandings and misinterpretations came up repeatedly. The first is that the agency concentrates primarily on people who already pay some maintenance and neglects the pursuit of fathers who have not acknowledged any responsibility for their child or children. It must be made clear that 96 per cent. of cases handled by the CSA involve children supported by benefit, and that nearly two thirds of cases taken on by the CSA this year will be ones where no maintenance is being paid. In more than 15,000 cases where the lone parent has been unable to provide the address, the absent parent has been tracked down by the CSA. That represents 89 per cent. of completed cases. It also shows that the CSA is not only seeking absent fathers but finding them.
There is no doubt that the old system of obtaining maintenance through the courts was slow and uncertain and led to low and inconsistent settlements. That procedure was clearly failing. However, it must be explained that where both parents are content with existing maintenance arrangements and the taxpayer does not have the burden of supporting the children, the parents are not forced to apply to the CSA. Therefore, in every case that the CSA has taken on, the existing arrangements were to the disadvantage either of the children or of the taxpayer. We must remember that many outstanding maintenance orders are indefensibly low—£5 or £10 a week. No one can pretend that that is adequate support from a father on a reasonable income.
Another misunderstanding concerns clean-break settlements, which were touched on earlier in the debate. I stress again the fact that there can be no clean break between parents and their children, and there never has been, even under the court system. The term "clean break" refers to a spouse's rights, including ownership of assets acquired during the marriage. That would frequently include settling half the house on a wife. However, frequently the couple's mortgage is transferred to the parent with care, along with the house, and if she is on income support that leaves the taxpayer to foot the bill.
Another important result of improved maintenance is that it will make it easier for lone mothers to return to work. That fact is often overlooked by critics of the CSA.
Maintenance gained through the intervention of the CSA will provide a portable income for mothers, which they will continue to receive even if they go back to work. The first £15 of maintenance is ignored for the purpose of calculating benefits if a mother is receiving, or is entitled to, family credit.
I participated in social security questions last Monday, and I was appalled that not a single Opposition voice was raised in support of the lone carer, usually the mother, and her children. I heard a male chorus, promoting in unison the absent father's point of view alone. Tonight I fear that both sides—

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Roe: No, time is short and Mr. Deputy Speaker has asked us to be brief.
Both sides of the House have again presented a one-sided story, and I must tell the House that many women in this country—

Mr. Wicks: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Roe: Many women in this country, including some in my constituency, fully endorse the work of the Child Support Agency—

Mr. Wicks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am in some difficulty because the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has said that no one spoke up during social security questions. I did.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Bogus.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) is responsible for her own speech.

Mrs. Roe: I was in the Chamber at the time and listened carefully to the questions put to Ministers. I did not hear anybody supporting carers and their children on that issue.

Mr. Wicks: Read Hansard.

Mrs. Roe: The case of.Mrs. Janis Richards was described in an article in The Times last Monday. She said:
I didn't know what to do until the CSA took on the case"—
[Interruption.] The Opposition should listen to this. They are proving my point; they are not interested in lone carers and their children.
The article said that, as a result of the intervention of the CSA, Mrs. Richards had received more money for the support of her eight-year-old daughter in the past two months than she had received from her estranged husband during the whole of the previous year. She originally received only £65 a month from her husband, which was totally inadequate. Out of just over £15 a week, she had to pay £8 for her daughter's school meals and bus fares. The remaining sum—£1 a day—was supposed to pay for her daughter's food, clothes, shoes, occasional treats and school trips.
Mrs. Richards said:
Whatever happens in my case, I cannot fault the CSA".
I shall also read from a letter that I received from a constituent who supports the Child Support Agency. She said:


For many years mothers have been left to feed, clothe, and care for the children on very little money, while the fathers walk out and continue to enjoy their income regardless of the fact that they have left their children living in poverty.
Many fathers are encouraged to leave their families once they realise that their wives will receive income support who will also pay the interest on their mortgage, leaving them to enjoy their new found financial gain.
When my ex-husband left me and our two children, he left income support to provide for us and pay the mortgage interest, while he lived in a rent free police house. When I finally received maintenance for the children from their father he ensured that I would receive minimum maintenance by purposefully committing the majority of his income to various loan and debt repayments stating to me that I wouldn't be able to have what he hadn't got so he would ensure his available income would be virtually non-existent by taking out as many loans etc. as he could. While myself and the children have been living in poverty for the past four years, he has been enjoying his police inspector's salary with holidays abroad, new clothes, new car and all the luxuries he desires, with no thought or help with providing his children with even the basic essentials they need."
That letter came from that man's second wife with two children. The taxpayer is funding the mortgage and providing income support for that family. The taxpayer is also providing exactly the same for his first family. He is now on wife number three. Surely it cannot be right for other working families to pay through their taxes to support the children of absent fathers on reasonable incomes. Fathers who can afford to do so should pay the full cost of maintaining their children.
As responsible Members of Parliament, we must listen to both sides of the story and ensure that children receive the support from both parents, which they deserve and need. It will take time for people to adjust to a new system such as the CSA, but we should give it the support that it merits. Let us not forget that bringing up children is an expensive business. What matters are regular payments for their day-to-day living expenses. Children's welfare must have the priority.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Before I embark on my speech, I shall clarify one point. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) was absolutely wrong when she said that the question of carers had not been raised by Opposition Members during Question Time. The hon. Member for Croydon North-West (Mr. Wicks), as he rightly said earlier, said then, inter alia:
Will he reform the measure to ensure that the vast proportion of money goes through to mothers with children, and that we have in reality a Child Support Act?"—[Official Report, 31 January 1994;: Vol. 236, c. 602.]
It may be in order for the hon. Lady to withdraw what she said.
I speak on behalf of my party and the Scottish National party and I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) for asking me to raise some points. I shall be brief as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest. No, I have not fallen foul of the "back to basics" purge. I am a lawyer who practises in divorce law. It is basic good sense that an absent parent should maintain his or her children, provided that he or she can afford to do so. The final words need emphasis since they do not appear to weigh heavily in the balance at the present time. It would be wrong to deny that the underlying theory behind the Child Support

Agency is a right and proper one. Of course society should ensure that children are given proper financial support. Therefore, my argument is not about the principle of the CSA, but about the operation of the agency under the present regime.
I read with great interest the Adjournment debate of 31 January. I have also read numerous letters from the Under-Secretary of State on the subject because, like all hon. Members, I have received numerous letters about it. The Under-Secretary said:
The principle of parental support for children is not new. However, there is no doubt that the old, court-based system was failing the majority of children.
Alas, the Child Support Agency is failing the majority of absent parents because the rigidity with which the formula is applied is mischievous. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, we have all had dozens of letters of complaint. People have suddenly been finding that maintainance orders evaluated by the county courts and regularly paid have been trebled overnight. Many absent parents have another home and another family, and the pressure is passed on to that new home and family.
In my years of practice as a divorce lawyer, I often saw clean-break orders—indeed, such orders were actively encouraged by practice directions and under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Frequently, a husband would transfer his equity in a substantial property to the wife and pay maintenance to the children. I know that the courts could never sanction a clean break between father and child, and I would not wish them to do so because that would surely be insidious. The Government, however, through the agency, have missed a very important point. Any lawyer who knows anything about divorce law knows that part of the reasoning behind making a clean-break order with the extra capital being transferred was to enable the wife to provide more than adequately for the children. Allowance has therefore been made in clean-break orders—

Mr. Burt: indicated dissent.

Mr. Llwyd: The Minister shakes his head. I will take the matter up with him at another time because time is short this evening, but as a practising lawyer I can tell him that that is absolutely correct—[Interruption.] As a part-time lawyer, then. That point appears to have been completely missed by the CSA under the current rules.
The Minister was also wrong when he said in the Adjournment debate that there were no investigative powers available to the courts. That is nonsensical. Courts often ordered that specialist accountants should become involved in investigating matters and ensuring that they were thoroughly looked into. If those in the legal profession were doing their job correctly, the courts naturally worked properly and adequately. It is wrong—and a slur on the profession and on courts—to say that maintenance orders were based on slipshod evidence and were the result of arbitrary decisions.
I respectfully hope that the Minister's somewhat facile knowledge of divorce law is not colouring his attitude to the debate. Closing the Adjournment debate, he said:
I hope that the changes will help."—[Official Report, 31 January 1994; Vol. 236, column 711–8.]
That is not exactly an inspiring sentence. The changes suggested by the Select Committee will have to help because we are dealing with misery, depression and even deaths as a result of the introduction of the Act. We are


now attempting to amend the legislation to ensure that the changes help. Anything less simply will not do. After all, politics is the art of the possible.
I pay tribute to the members of the Select Committee for the urgency with which they investigated this matter and for the breadth of good sense in their report. No doubt that urgency is a fair barometer of hon. Members' bulging postbags.
To return to the main principle—the paramountcy of the child's needs—I am deeply concerned about the effect that even the amended legislation will have on stepchildren or children of a subsequent union. In a wide-ranging and informative debate in the other place, Lord Russell urged the Minister to look again—this time favourably—on paragraphs 81 and 82 of the Select Committee report. I echo that call. Time does not permit me to quote from the report, but I believe that it is as vital to secure the needs of the second family as it is to secure those of the children in the first family. The report deals with ways of achieving that.
At school—on reflection, to my utter regret—I was often told by teachers that I could do better. The Government can do better, too, and I want to concentrate on three or four cardinal points that need to be addressed. I understand the rationale behind the statement that the obligation to maintain a child adequately comes before any expense or cost, but it is a signal failure of the Act—and, sadly, of the amendments—that an absent father's travel-to-work costs and his right to have contact with his children are not taken into account. Both are vital components in the exercise and should be fully deductible.
I know of many cases, and I have read of many more, where absent parents take the view that without an allowance for travelling it will not be worth while working. That places a further burden on the state. Travel costs are as essential as those for food and clothing and should be recognised as such.
I make a plea to Ms Hepplewhite, if she is within the confines of the building or wherever else she may be, and her happy band of performance-related employees to target the people who decline to pay and then to move on to more lucrative preserves. Even under the amendment, absent parents on modest incomes will pay an additional element of 50 per cent. That is clearly regressive and it would be far better to reduce the 50 per cent. taper for second families so that low-earning as well as high-earning absent parents gain. The present proposals will cause hardship and is, prima facie, unfair.
I accept that there is an improvement to £30 a week in the protected income level, but it should be increased to £40 to enable lower earners to gain some benefit and to cope. The additional reduction to 15 per cent. is welcome, but there is leeway to reduce it to 10 per cent. Before Treasury Ministers tell me how much it will all cost, I remind them that this exercise was intended not to recoup money for the Treasury but to meet the needs of children.
I welcome the amendment to the formula to reduce the amount payable for care of children, but a 50 per cent. reduction across the board for children aged from 11 to 16 would be reasonable. It would be simpler to apply. It is just tinkering with the problem to say that reductions will go up from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. It would surely be simpler to apply a 50 per cent. reduction.
I sincerely hope and trust that further amendments will be considered because the regulations are widely viewed as

a knee-jerk reaction to intense media attention and, of course, to the concerns of constituents, which have been expressed by all hon. Members.
We have seemingly gone part of the way, but we need to go the extra mile to ensure fair play to all concerned. I echo the view of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is experienced in these matters, that the amendments are not the last change that is needed to the Act. Without further amendments, there will be a widespread call in both Houses for changes in primary legislation.
We have an opportunity to stem the tide of widespread injustice. Let us take it for the sake of our constituents and, above all, in the interests of our children.

Mr. Adam Ingram: What has happened tonight has been a tale of two debates. One debate has been on the narrow issue of the Government's regulations, which, I remind the House, were sneaked out three days before Christmas and after the House had risen for the recess. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is muttering from a sedentary position, but the way in which the regulations were introduced showed an extreme nervousness in the Government. As was argued at the time, it was also discourteous to the House and a denial of democratic accountability. In short, it was a transparent attempt by the Minister to seek to massage the media without proper scrutiny or debate. Belatedly, the Secretary of State has now introduced the measures.
The second debate that has surfaced tonight is the one that the House really wants. It is a debate on the effects and function of the Act that the hundreds of people—absent parents and parents with responsibility for care alike—have demanded should take place.
It is worth pointing out that on two separate occasions in the past few weeks the Government have denied time to the Opposition to allow a full and free debate on a motion on the wider aspects and implications of the Act and on the activities of the agency. I see the Minister shaking his head. I hope that he will deal with that matter in his reply.
Clearly the Government recognise that they have an unsustainable case. That is why they have denied the two debates on those two separate occasions. Such debates would expose the Government to even more ridicule and criticism from Conservative Members than there was this evening.
The Minister might be able to run away from a debate on this issue but, as hon. Members have said, he certainly cannot hide from it. "The debate will take place in the near future." We have heard that before, and Government business managers change the business to stop the debate taking place. However, a debate will take place in the future and it will allow proper examination of the many criticisms of the Act and its effects on families throughout the land.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is smiling because he knows perfectly well that he and his colleagues have lost the chance of a debate because of their behaviour over the past two or three weeks.

Mr. Ingram: As for the procedural conduct in the House, democracy prevails in a particular way. Opposition


Members have not acted unreasonably. There has been a deliberate attempt to stop the debate taking place. It is clear that many Conservative Members want such a debate.
It is worth bearing in mind that the regulations are a reaction by the Government to the substantial and sustained pressure which has been put on them to ease the financial burden imposed on absent parents and on the second families of absent parents. The Government do not intend to introduce any further changes to the Act.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Good.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Lady is one of two hon. Members who take that view—[Interruption.]—apart from the Government.
Time and again, the Minister has made it clear that the Government do not intend to introduce any further changes to the Act. In fact, in a written answer, he stated:
There are no plans for further change."—[Official Report, 1 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 578]
Of course, the Government have said that before: "There are no plans to raise VAT, no plans to increase national insurance contributions, and no plans to increase taxes." Perhaps we should doubt such statements.

Mr. Frank Field: Does my hon. Friend accept that, as most people who will be affected by the legislation have not yet received their forms and as the build-up will be towards the next election, it would be foolish of the Government to abide by that statement?

Mr. Ingram: I agree entirely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Such a statement by the Government will come as a great disappointment to the many organisations and charities involved with parents with care and with the care of children. It will also come as a great disappointment —indeed, it will be viewed with great anger—by groups who are springing up all over the country in opposition to the Act. Given the contributions by Conservative Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), it will be greatly resented by hon. Members who face escalating demands for a further fundamental and detailed review of the Act and for changes to be introduced to reflect the many criticisms of the Act.
The Minister cannot ignore those demands. Is he still not prepared to go any further than the regulations? Does he stand by his statement in Hansard? If so, does that mean that he rules out any possible changes to build flexibility into the system? That was the main thrust of hon. Members' arguments. Such an argument was made with great passion by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell).
Does the Minister still say that representations that he has received to take into account clean-break settlements, travel-to-work costs, access costs, the effects on children of second marriages and many other financial consequences are to be ignored? Does he really say that, especially in view of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the very hon. Member behind whom the Minister has hidden ever since the Select Committee report was published and who clearly set out his own trenchant criticisms of the Act and the way forward in terms of a review?
First, will the Minister confirm that the regulations bring no benefit to parents with care or, more important, to their children? I direct that point especially to the hon. Member for Broxbourne. The Minister will be aware that the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that a case can be made for an income report disregard payable to the parent with care. Is he completely ruling out that possibility?
Secondly, does the Minister accept that, depending on the family circumstances of both the absent parent and the parent with care, it is possible, even with the regulations, for parents with care to find themselves floated off income support because of the level of maintenance? At the same time, they can be denied other passported benefits such as free dental care, free prescriptions and free school meals. Is that fair? If the Minister thinks that it is not, why will he not accept the need for a further review of the legislation?
The next issue relates to the payment of family credit to a mother who is in part-time work and in receipt of maintenance. Family credit is payable on a six-monthly calculated basis, and if the maintenance stops or is reduced for any reason the mother's reduced family credit entitlement will remain unaltered for the remainder of the six months. Ironically, the new regulations could worsen that situation. I hope that the hon. Member for Broxbourne takes note of that.
The new transitional arrangements may help some absent parents but could also cause parents with care to suffer a reduction in income during the phasing in of payments for which family credit would not immediately compensate. As adjustments to family credit payments can already be made at any time under a reduced benefit direction, the Minister could act to introduce more flexibility on behalf of the parent with care. Surely even this Minister and this Government must accept that imposing a drastic fall in living standards for parents with care and their children is simply unacceptable. Is he still determined to rule out a review? Why has he not introduced regulations to deal with that problem?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the regulations, both separately and jointly, are welcome, but, as he also said, they do not go far enough. Much has been said about the problems being encountered by absent parents—usually, but not always, the fathers. We accept that the changes will help them to some degree. The new phasing-in arrangements are welcome to the extent that they will help to prevent the ludicrous situation of some absent parents with second families having their maintenance contributions trebled overnight.
It is regrettable that the Government did not follow their thinking through and extend the provisions to single absent parents, to those who are not part of a second family, or to those who may not already be paying maintenance because of a previous clean-break settlement. Those absent parents also need help in making transitional arrangements. Their needs should be taken into account, but they have been ignored in the regulations.
The phrase "clean-break settlement" has been used time and again in the debate. It is not acceptable that the Government should dismiss the issue. They maintain that it is not practicable to build into the process a way of dealing with significant clean-break arrangements of whatever type, but that is simply not true. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, the successful


Australian child support scheme does just that by giving powers to an independent review officer to vary the formula determined assessment.
The increase in the protected income for absent parents is welcome as a step in the right direction. However, the proposed changes highlight the regressive nature of the formula which places disproportionate burdens on parents with low incomes compared with those on high incomes. Is that what the Government are trying to achieve with the legislation? Do they want to give the rich better benefits than those on low incomes? In a letter dated 28 January 1993 which he sent to The Guardian the Minister said:
The new partner of a parent has no liability for the maintenance of the parent's children from a previous relationship. The implementation of the Act has shown this not to be totally accurate.
The Minister should have known when he wrote that letter that the earnings of a second partner or any adult in the household of the absent parent are taken into account in determining the second family's ability to pay full maintenance to the first family. Perhaps he will set the record straight.
Only one conclusion can be reached on the debate that is raging outside and has been reflected in the House tonight: the Government have not satisfied their critics by tabling the regulations. As they are an improvement to the Act, we do not intend to vote against them. It is good to get something out of the Government even if it is not much.
In principle most people viewed the Child Support Act as a potentially helpful and necessary piece of legislation, but it is clear that, unless a fundamental far-reaching review of the Act and the agency is undertaken, the legislation will become no more than a poll tax in nappies for the Government.

Mr. Burt: With the leave of the House, I shall take this opportunity to respond.
First, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. Although right hon. and hon. Members have different views about whether the regulations go far enough, there is a feeling that there will not be a vote at the end of the evening, so I do not intend to be combative in my winding-up remarks. There will be a further debate about the principle of the agency, and that might be dealt with rather differently.
I want to respond to the mood of the House. It has been an interesting debate which leaves a number of questions unanswered. Some of the remarks that were made go to the heart of the issue of child maintenance and some thoughtful speeches were made. Whatever we say here, we are left with the fundamental issue of how to handle child maintenance and who is to pay for the responsibilities of bringing up children.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in an extremely good speech, did not shy away from the issues. He said straightforwardly that people cannot have it all ways and some difficult questions were raised for those who could be expected to pay more and that it was not always possible to reach a solution in which no one would be hurt and everyone had to pay for their children. He said that the hard facts had to be faced. Not all hon. Members took that approach.
The first issue that was raised—one that could detain us for a long time—was whether to scrap the agency and return to a court system or move to something else.
Although hon. Members are quick to say, "No, we must not do it," that was certainly the tenor of the remarks of the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). It is clear that there is a dispute among hon. Members now that did not exist some two and a half or three years ago when the issue was thoroughly debated.
The problem that we confronted then was how to deal with a system where there was total discretion but widespread recognition that the system did not work. We had to decide how to deal with that and how to move on. The House at the time strongly held and endorsed the principle—but not the practice tonight—that it was better to move to a system which provided greater consistency. However, there is a price to pay and I fully accept that. That is what we are debating now.
I remind those who want to return to total, partial or increased discretion of some of the issues that were faced by women at that time. I refer to the remarks of Sue Slipman of the National Council for One Parent Families on a radio programme when she described her experience of the former arrangements. She said:
Before April last year, only 30 per cent. of lone parents got any maintenance for their children whatsoever in this country. Most of it was at derisory levels and I'll tell you what happened when you went to court to get someone to pay maintenance. Maybe he would turn up to the hearing, but maybe he wouldn't, and if he didn't, it would be postponed for six months. You would then get a whole range of debts that would be presented and a whole range of other excuses for why maintenance could not be paid. You might then at the end of that get an order, and it might be paid for two or three weeks, no-one enforced it and no one was ever interested. And as a result of that, the experience of over 1·7 million children in Britain was abandonment by one parent and a life in poverty with the other.
Hon. Members are quick to say that they do not want to go back to that; but if we do not want a system that provides certainty and consistency, which is what the House wanted two or three years ago, and we want to increase the element of discretion, we run the risk that that situation would increasingly occur. That is a genuine issue, but the House must decide—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Burt: No, I have only 10 minutes and I must deal with the matter in my own way.
If we do not want to return to that situation, we will not move away from some formulaic system to deal with the problem and we would be dishonest with the country if we pretended that that could be avoided. That is a fundamental and crucial issue which some have raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) spoke of the problems faced under the previous system and she mentioned some of the successes of the Child Support Agency. Hon. Members sat in silence and listened to the distressing case histories, which they all come across in their surgeries, as I do in mine, but when my hon. Friend spoke of the sort of problems that people once had and then put forward points made by people in favour of the Child Support Agency, there was much less concern. Hon. Members talked through that and tried to dismiss it. That will not do. It is not an either/or situation.
There are problems in dealing with child maintenance, whether one is the absent parent or the parent with care. No


system is perfect. If the House is trying to be honest, we are trying to find a way through to a better system. The regulations are moving us in that direction.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Burt: I can allow only one intervention from each side.

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend will be aware that many criticisms have been levelled at the agency. I have sent 12 cases through and I have received comprehensive explanations on each. I have also corresponded with Mrs. Hepplewhite and she has been most courteous and informative.

Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Many of my hon. Friends raised problems in dealing with the agency. It will be no surprise when I say that the agency has been under extreme pressure. It is working hard. I apologise to all hon. Members who have had to wait too long for responses. We are doing all that we can to try to speed that up. However, my hon. Friend makes it clear that that is not everyone's experience in dealing with the agency, whether hon. Members or not.

Mr. Bennett: The Minister has made a powerful case, referring to mothers who received no help in the past through the courts. The trouble is that the Child Support Agency has so far done little to help my constituents; rather it has penalised those who have conscientiously made payments. When will the Government direct their attention towards the people who do not pay as opposed to those who do?

Mr. Burt: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that at the moment about half the cases taken on by the Child Support Agency concern those where no maintenance at all has been paid. By the end of the agency's first year of operation, some two thirds of its cases will involve those who have never paid any maintenance. It is false to say that no search is made for those people.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) raised the problem of good cause and similar matters. Hon. Members will remember that, when the agency was set up, that subject was of great concern and the Government worked hard to deal with it. I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that some 36,000 cases, about 5 per cent. of all applications issued, have involved the consideration of good cause. Good cause put forward by the parent with care has been accepted in some 20,500 cases—about 57 per cent.—and some have still to be decided.
To date, only 160 cases have been referred to the Benefits Agency for a reduced benefit direction. If one considers that the agency has some 500,000 cases on its books, that puts the issue into some sort of perspective. We did care about that, we did think about it and we have responded as well as we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made some fair points in favour of the agency, but he also raised issues about which he is concerned, of which I take note. I repeat my apologies in relation to the correspondence. We are working hard to clear it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) raised a number of issues. In relation to the disclosure of information, I am sure that it is clear to all

hon. Members that, in dealing with the financial aspects of a case, just as in the past affidavits used to be swopped in ancillary proceedings to ensure that both sides knew the financial circumstances, that has to happen here. That is why information about income, and the like, is revealed to both parties. There can be no way through that. The provisions of the Data Protection Acts apply to the CSA as well. However, we are taking steps to reduce the information requested from second partners in cases where protected income will not be at issue, because that is where it has most impact. I am sure that the House will welcome that.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke of the problems raised for members of the police force. When such cases arose, we discussed that aspect with the Home Office. It advised that policemen would not be dismissed solely on account of increased maintenance liabilities under the Child Support Act 1991. A policeman who is negligent in managing his financial affairs can be subject to disciplinary procedures. In extreme cases, that can lead ultimately to dismissal. However, cases in which maintenance increases are causing difficulty will be dealt with sympathetically, and appropriate advice and counselling will be provided.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) asked whether the changes announced tonight would apply to those who had previously had maintenance assessments. He cited the case of a constituent with a second family, whose assessment was made some time ago. The answer to that question is yes. The changes will apply to those who have had assessments made previously. I hope that also assists the House.
I enjoyed the comments of the hon. Member for Garscadden because they were sensible and dealt fairly with some of the issues. He did not try to hide from the fact that somebody, somewhere, must pay for children after their parents have separated. I thought that it was accepted by the House in the past that where such a situation occurs, that responsibility must rest primarily with the parents involved and not with the rest of society. That happened previously, and the previous system supported it. If we are to move away from that principle, that will be a major departure for the House.
The hon. Member for Garscadden again raised the issue of appeals. I understand his point in relation to a pressure valve, but I will repeat my earlier argument as to why the Australian system should not too easily be viewed as a counterpart—although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not want it introduced root and branch.
The Australian system works on gross income and does not take account of housing costs, a personal allowance, tax, national insurance and other costs. It simply applies a crude percentage. The crudeness of the system gives it an appeal base, but appeals are restricted. They are not open to all—there are strict gateways. The sense of the House was clear, in feeling a degree of unease about the legislation—I understand that. However, there is a danger of suggesting that an appeal mechanism is an abracadabra —that it would be available to all and that all the people who are currently worried would have their problems solved.
The hon. Member for Garscadden was fair and straightforward enough to say that would not be the case. But who among us would go to any of the constituents who have come to us over the past few months and say, "There will be an appeals system, but it will not apply to you"? We


cannot tell all constituents that there will be an appeal system for all. That would merely return us to the discretionary system which previously existed. II is an issue to be looked at, but I warn the House that there can be a danger of seeing it as an answer to everything.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "It is an issue to be looked at." Does he mean that? If so, that is quite an important concession.

Mr. Burt: I will come to the future in a second, if I may. Continuing our warm and good relationship, I will deal with that matter in just a moment.
The House cannot hide from a point that I have made repeatedly: if there is to be separation, who is to bear the costs? In the past, society as a whole bore too many of the costs. I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made and I am sorry not to have referred in more detail to his remarks. Yes, X used comments made by the Select Committee, but rightfully so because they backed up a case. I know that there were matters on which we could not agree. The point that he has made in his report was that the taxpayer has paid for too long. Somehow, we must try to get over that hurdle. If the taxpayer pays less, responsible parents pay more.

Mr. Frank Field: Apart from one person in Gillingham, who has gained a concession tonight, the Minister has not announced any new changes. Is that because the Treasury will not allow him to do so, or is that his position?

Mr. Burt: Forgive me, but if it had been a matter for the Treasury, none of the changes would have come forward, because they all cost. The Government have responded to need and the cost is less important. As to the future—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [28 January].

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 46.

Division No. 102]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bright, Graham


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)


Alexander, Richard
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cash, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clappison, James


Baldry, Tony
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Congdon, David


Beggs, Roy
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Cormack, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cran, James


Bowden, Andrew
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowis, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandreth, Gyles
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Deva, Nirj Joseph





Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Legg, Barry


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Leigh, Edward


Dover, Den
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Duncan, Alan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lidington, David


Dunn, Bob
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Luff, Peter


Elletson, Harold
MacKay, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclean, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Faber, David
Malone, Gerald


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mans, Keith


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marland, Paul


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marlow, Tony


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fishburn, Dudley
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forman, Nigel
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mates, Michael


Forth, Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Merchant, Piers


French, Douglas
Milligan, Stephen


Fry, Sir Peter
Mills, Iain


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gallie, Phil
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gardiner, Sir George
Moate, Sir Roger


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Monro, Sir Hector


Gill, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gillan, Cheryl
Moss, Malcolm


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Needham, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nelson, Anthony


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hargreaves, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Harris, David
Ottaway, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Paice, James


Hawksley, Warren
Patnick, Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Hicks, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Richards, Rod


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spencer, Sir Derek






Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Viggers, Peter


Spink, Dr Robert
Walden, George


Spring, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sproat, Iain
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Stephen, Michael
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sweeney, Walter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wilkinson, John


Thomason, Roy
Willetts, David


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Twinn, Dr Ian





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Alton, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kilfedder, Sir James


Bennett, Andrew F.
Kirkwood, Archy


Benton, Joe
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Caborn, Richard
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Pickthall, Colin


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Rendel, David


Clapham, Michael
Rooney, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Simpson, Alan


Cox, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Steinberg, Gerry


Cummings, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Turner, Dennis


Etherington, Bill
Tyler, Paul


Flynn, Paul
Wallace, James


Graham, Thomas
Wareing, Robert N


Harvey, Nick
Wigley, Dafydd


Home Robertson, John



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. Eddie Loyden.


Illsley, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.

Statutory Instruments, &c

Madam Speaker: By leave of the House, may I put motions 5 to 8 together?

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Speaker: I shall therefore put motion 5.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Austria) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Conway.]

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 61.

Division No. 103]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Couchman, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Cran, James


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkins, Robert
Dover, Den


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Bates, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Faber, David


Booth, Hartley
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, Andrew
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandreth, Gyles
Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bright, Graham
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fry, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Gallie, Phil


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, Sir George


Butler, Peter
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Congdon, David
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Harvey, Nick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawkins, Nick


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawksley, Warren


Cormack, Patrick
Hayes, Jerry






Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) 
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rendel, David


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sproat, Iain


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stephen, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Sweeney, Walter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maclean, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thomason, Roy


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thurnham, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mans, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Marland, Paul
Tredinnick, David


Marlow, Tony
Trend, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tyler, Paul


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Walden, George


Milligan, Stephen
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Mills, Iain
Wallace, James


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Ward, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Monro, Sir Hector
Waterson, Nigel


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watts, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Needham, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Neubert, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Willetts, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Yeo, Tim


Norris, Steve
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley



Oppenheim, Phillip
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Page, Richard






NOES


Ainger, Nick
Illsley, Eric


Barnes, Harry
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Benton, Joe
Lewis, Terry


Berts, Clive
Loyden, Eddie


Bradley, Keith
McCartney, Ian


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mahon, Alice


Clapham, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michael, Alun


Cohen, Harry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cousins, Jim
Morgan, Rhodri


Cox, Tom
Mudie, George


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pickthall, Colin


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Pike, Peter L.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dewar, Donald
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Reid, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Rooney, Terry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Simpson, Alan


Etherington, Bill
Spellar, John


Flynn, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Foulkes, George
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Turner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Wareing, Robert N


Graham, Thomas
Wigley, Dafydd


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wise, Audrey


Gunnell, John



Hall, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Heppell, John
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Hinchliffe, David



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Indonesia) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Conway.]

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 55.

Division No. 104]
[10.26 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butler, Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cash, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Chapman, Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Bates, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Congdon, David


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Booth, Hartley
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cran, James


Bowden, Andrew
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowis, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandreth, Gyles
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bright, Graham
Devlin, Tim


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Dorrell, Stephen


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James






Dover, Den
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Luff, Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lynne, Ms Liz


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maclean, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Faber, David
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Malone, Gerald


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marlow, Tony


Forth, Eric
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


French, Douglas
Merchant, Piers


Fry, Sir Peter
Milligan, Stephen


Gallie, Phil
Mills, Iain


Gardiner, Sir George
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gill, Christopher
Moate, Sir Roger


Gillan, Cheryl
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Needham, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Harvey, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Irvine


Heald, Oliver
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert
Pickles, Eric


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rendel, David


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, Sir David
Soames, Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sproat, Iain


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)





Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Viggers, Peter


Steen, Anthony
Walden, George


Stephen, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stewart, Allan
Waller, Gary


Streeter, Gary
Ward, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wells, Bowen


Thomason, Roy
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whittingdale, John


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Willetts, David


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wolfson, Mark


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Vaughan, Sir Gerard





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Barnes, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Loyden, Eddie


Bennett, Andrew F.
Mackinlay, Andrew


Betts, Clive
McMaster, Gordon


Bradley, Keith
Mahon, Alice


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Caborn, Richard
Michael, Alun


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clapham, Michael
Miller, Andrew


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morgan, Rhodri


Cohen, Harry
Mudie, George


Cousins, Jim
Pickthall, Colin


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Primarolo, Dawn


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Reid, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Rooney, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Simpson, Alan


Etherington, Bill
Spellar, John


Flynn, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Foulkes, George
Turner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wareing, Robert N


Gordon, Mildred
Wigley, Dafydd


Graham, Thomas
Wise, Audrey


Gunnell, John



Hall, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Hinchliffe, David
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Uzbekistan) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Chapman]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Serjeant, will you investigate the delay in the No Lobby?

The House having divided: Ayes 236, Noes 52.

Division No. 105]
[10.38 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkins, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer


Ashby, David
Beggs, Roy


Aspinwall, Jack
Bellingham, Henry






Bendall, Vivian
Hayes, Jerry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Heald, Oliver


Booth, Hartley
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Hendry, Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hicks, Robert


Bowden, Andrew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Bowis, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Horam, John


Brandreth, Gyles
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Brazier, Julian
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bright, Graham
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Hunter, Andrew


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Burt, Alistair
Jenkin, Bernard


Butler, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Butterfill, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Key, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Carrington, Matthew
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carttiss, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Cash, William
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Clappison, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Colvin, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Congdon, David
Legg, Barry


Conway, Derek
Leigh, Edward


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Couchman, James
Lidington, David


Cran, James
Lightbown, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Luff, Peter


Day, Stephen
Lynne, Ms Liz


Deva, Nirj Joseph
MacKay, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Maclean, David


Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Duncan, Alan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Malone, Gerald


Dunn, Bob
Mans, Keith


Durant, Sir Anthony
Marland, Paul


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Elletson, Harold
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Merchant, Piers


Faber, David
Milligan, Stephen


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Iain


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Fishburn, Dudley
Moate, Sir Roger


Forman, Nigel
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Needham, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nelson, Anthony


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fry, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gardiner, Sir George
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Norris, Steve


Gill, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gillan, Cheryl
Ottaway, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Page, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paice, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Pawsey, James


Hague, William
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Pickles, Eric


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Harris, David
Rathbone, Tim


Hawkins, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Rendel, David





Ronton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Richards, Rod
Thomason, Roy


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tredinnick, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trend, Michael


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Tyler, Paul


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shersby, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wallace, James


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Watts, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wells, Bowen


Spring, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sproat, Iain
Whitney, Ray


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Stephen, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan
Yeo, Tim


Streeter, Gary



Sweeney, Walter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Barnes, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Betts, Clive
McMaster, Gordon


Bradley, Keith
Mahon, Alice


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Caborn, Richard
Michael, Alun


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clapham, Michael
Miller, Andrew


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morgan, Rhodri


Cohen, Harry
Mudie, George


Cousins, Jim
Pickthall, Colin


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Reid, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Rooney, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Spellar, John


Foulkes, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Turner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Wareing, Robert N


Graham, Thomas
Wigley, Dafydd


Gunnell, John
Wise, Audrey


Hall, Mike



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. Eddie Loyden.


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport) (Saudi Arabia) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Chapman.]

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 50.

Division No. 106]
[10.52 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Amess, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Aspinwall, Jack






Atkins, Robert
Gillan, Cheryl


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bates, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Batiste, Spencer
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Beggs, Roy
Hague, William


Bellingham, Henry
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bendall, Vivian
Harris, David


Booth, Hartley
Harvey, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Hawkins, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hawksley, Warren


Bowden, Andrew
Hayes, Jerry


Bowis, John
Heald, Oliver


Brandreth, Gyles
Hendry, Charles


Bright, Graham
Hicks, Robert


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Horam, John


Burns, Simon
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Burt, Alistair
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butler, Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jenkin, Bernard


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Carttiss, Michael
Key, Robert


Cash, William
Kilfedder, Sir James


Chapman, Sydney
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clappison, James
Kirkwood, Archy


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Congdon, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Conway, Derek
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Couchman, James
Legg, Barry


Cran, James
Leigh, Edward


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lidington, David


Day, Stephen
Lightbown, David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Luff, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dover, Den
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Maclean, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dunn, Bob
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Durant, Sir Anthony
Maginnis, Ken


Eggar, Tim
Maitland, Lady Olga


Elletson, Harold
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mans, Keith


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Marland, Paul


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Faber, David
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fishburn, Dudley
Merchant, Piers


Forman, Nigel
Milligan, Stephen


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Moate, Sir Roger


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


French, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Gallie, Phil
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)





Norris, Steve
Stewart, Allan


Oppenheim, Phillip
Streeter, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pawsey, James
Thomason, Roy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pickles, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rathbone, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Rendel, David
Trend, Michael


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Richards, Rod
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Tyler, Paul


Robathan, Andrew
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Viggers, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Walden, George


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waller, Gary


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Sackville, Tom
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whittingdale, John


Soames, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Spring, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sproat, Iain
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Stephen, Michael





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry
McMaster, Gordon


Battle, John
Mahon, Alice


Betts, Clive
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Bradley, Keith
Michael, Alun


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Miller, Andrew


Clapham, Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mudie, George


Cohen, Harry
Pickthall, Colin


Cousins, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Cox, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Prescott, John


Dixon, Don
Primarolo, Dawn


Dowd, Jim
Reid, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Rooney, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Spellar, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Steinberg, Gerry


Gordon, Mildred
Turner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Wareing, Robert N


Gunnell, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Hall, Mike
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Alan Simpson.


Lewis, Terry

Question put and agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SALVAGE AND POLLUTION) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of Stale under that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Patnick.]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER BILL

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the committal of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to a Standing Committee on 11th January, any new Clause relating to capital punishment or to the age of consent for sexual acts between men in Great Britain of which notice may be given not later than 9th February in respect of the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House; and that, when the Committee of the whole House has reported with respect to any such new Clause and the Standing Committee on the Bill has reported the Bill, the Bill will be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Flooding (West Sussex)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Sir Michael Marshall: It is a great pleasure to raise the subject of flooding in West Sussex, particularly because one has been waiting some time to raise it, but that does not undermine the importance of what I have to say tonight in what I hope will be considered to be a broader approach than the usual constituency problems.
While the concerns that I must express necessarily concentrate on the cause and effect of recent severe flooding in my constituency, it is clear that many of the principles involved and the unanswered questions relate to our county as a whole. I am therefore grateful for the support that I have in raising this subject from other West Sussex Members of Parliament, and the process has been given added impetus by the meeting that we had with the West Sussex county council last Friday. I also welcome to the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, representing as he does the flood defence and emergency services work of his Department as well as a Sussex constituency.
The scale of the problem in West Sussex was immediately apparent when flooding occurred during the afternoon and evening of 30 December last year. I shall always recall that particular day as one on which those like myself travelling from Victoria to the south coast were obliged to abandon the train in the early evening at Horsham. The buses that took us on had the greatest difficulty getting through heavily flooded roads and it was immediately clear that flooding on this scale would have adverse effects on farmland.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench tonight, has written to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about problems raised with him by the National Farmers Union regarding flooding over large areas of the county. Both he and I, and our local farmers, will be anxious to hear what my hon. Friend has to say on this aspect tonight.
So, too, will all those involved in the human tragedies that befell many of my constituents when several feet of water entered their homes later that night. As the West Sussex county council report says, 2 in of rain fell on that day alone and 8 in in 17 days. On 30 December, extensive initial flooding occurred in virtually every borough and district of West Sussex and, most particularly, in the villages of Barnham, Bersted, Climping, Eastergate, Walberton and Yapton in my constituency.
I recognise, of course, that the subsequent horrors of flooding in Chichester almost assumed national disaster proportions, and I welcome the recently announced study by the National Rivers Authority of that problem. But it is naturally the problems in my own villages on which I must concentrate. Not only were they the first to be badly affected, but in Barnham 35 flooded householders had to be evacuated by inshore lifeboats. Their problems again raise wider matters of principle affecting our country and beyond. They also raise questions about small rural communities in which the Government must take a direct interest and upon which I seek the Minister's initial response.
The problems may be summarised as follows. First, there is the problem of regular flooding. The obvious question that arises is to what extent can and must improved facilities be provided.
Secondly, in making planning agreements for future housing development, is sufficient attention paid to whether they place exceptional demands on current and often old drainage facilities?
Thirdly, there is the related recurring health hazard of overflowing foul sewers. As my constituent Dr. John Mason, a scientific and technical consultant in Barnham, has asked in a comprehensive recent report on flooding in that village, can already stretched foul sewer resources cope with a large volume of surface water flowing into them from time to time and, if not, how can the problem be solved?
I realise that in answer to those questions my hon. Friend will refer to the responsibility of the West Sussex county council, the Arun district council, the National Rivers Authority and Southern Water. Naturally, I have sought urgent responses from all those authorities. So far, I have received only interim answers. That is understandable. Their main concern has been to overcome the immediate difficulties and they promise further and detailed study when the opportunity presents itself.
However, I am glad that the West Sussex county council has accepted my proposal that there should be an urgent meeting involving all the authorities and those who can give appropriate professional advice to tackle these and other relevant questions. I also welcome the detailed study promised by the National Rivers Authority of the problems experienced particularly in Barnham.
One of the most important aspects of those further consultations must be the problem of co-ordination. Too many of my constituents have been passed from one authority to another, particularly on matters relating to flood-affected sewage and disposal. I also received complaints from Arun district council of a lack of early response and consultation by other authorities.
I referred earlier to others whose advice should be taken into account. I still await an answer to my suggestion that telephone switch boxes and electricity supply points should be lifted above ground level at regular flooding spots. In Barnham, flooding caused the loss of electricity and telephone links for several days for too many of my elderly constituents. I urge the Government to become involved in that process by drawing up detailed guidelines for better co-ordination. After all, the Government have direct responsibility for the creation and current review of the role and future of those authorities.
I assume that there are lessons to be learnt from the approximately triennial incidence of flooding in the last few years, and account should be taken of the problems experienced in not only West Sussex but north Wales and the west country—as will be fresh in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members.
What is the present state of Government co-ordination? After widespread storm damage in 1990, the Home Office was responsible for the co-ordination of Government Departments, and the Department of the Environment met claims for the so-called Bellwin funding. I welcome and appreciate the fact that Ministers from both Departments recently visited flood-affected areas in West Sussex.
I seek an assurance that the Department of Social Security will give special support, as it did in 1990, to people on income support. As to my hon. Friend's own


Department, what is the state of technical studies in the agricultural research institutes in which he takes such a keen interest? Is modern technology capable of providing early-warning systems when flood waters rise to danger level? I appreciate that those questions are wide and complex and go beyond my hon. Friend's departmental responsibilities. As some of them arose from information that came to hand late today, I shall fully understand if my hon. Friend would prefer to write to me on some aspects of the matters that I have raised. I hope that he will be able to do so.
As to direct Government assistance in meeting immediate financial problems, Arun district council estimates that the additional costs of relief are already in excess of £100,000. It has applied to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for hell) under the Bellwin scheme, which provides special financial arrangements designed to assist local authorities in emergencies, and specifically to safeguard life and property and to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience.
I support that application, as I shall support the expected claim from West Sussex county council, which is likely to run into millions of pounds. That is the purpose of contingency funding for which the Budget provides, and I look for an urgent Government response.
I ask the Government to take an imaginative and sympathetic approach to the special problems of the many small businesses which lost stock and normal peak business in the new year., and for which insurance cover may be limited or non-existent. Perhaps consideration can be given to making some adjustment to the uniform business rate. En that respect, I am glad to have a Treasury presence on the Government Front Bench, as well as the constituency presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).
There is the possibility of support, through an application for humanitarian assistance, from the European Commission, which is being vigorously pursued by our Member of the European Parliament, Madron Seligman. In 1989, the Commission made an initial contribution to the United Kingdom of £220,000 for storm victims. I ask the Government to add their voice in obtaining additional funding from that source for families and local businesses.
In that context, I am glad that, in general, insurance companies responded to the urgent need for assistance in replacing ruined household equipment and clothing. However, I am obliged still to chase a number of companies because of the continuing anguish that they cause by bureaucracy and delay. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will add his voice to those appealing for swift and compassionate action.
Whatever worries there may be about co-ordination and the continuing problems that face many of my constituents, I cannot end without expressing appreciation to all those who assisted in overcoming many of the honors of recent events. All the authorities that I have mentioned gave help through their staff—who, in many cases, went beyond the call of duty, often working throughout the day and night without rest.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Hear, hear.

Sir Michael Marshall: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees. I know that he, too, has spoken about this issue.
Those authorities were backed up by the police, the Army and entire local communities. I single out for special

praise the work of the voluntary sector—for instance, the specially formed Barnham Flood Relief Association, which has done so much to help those lacking insurance cover by fund raising and the collection and provision of essential supplies. That association and the Barnham Residents Association, which has monitored the effects of flooding with great care, now estimate that the cost of the damage to the village could exceed £1 million. That assumes average costs of more than £8,000 in the homes —more than 100 homes—that were badly affected by flooding.
It is estimated that 10 per cent. of that total represents an uninsured loss of £100,000. In all, some 300 people have been involved in flooding, and many—sadly—have been unable to return to their homes while waiting for estimates and going through the whole process of obtaining insurance payments, and while repairs are under way. Others have had to live in damp and insanitary conditions, fearing further flooding.
Mr. John Auckland, a former chairman of the Barnham Residents Association—I am indebted to him for the latest situation report—has said:
Many houses were inundated with several feet of water containing raw sewage, diesel oil and other chemicals. By the time the mess is cleared up over 60 skips will have been filled with ruined personal possessions. The entire contents of people's homes have been destroyed. It will take months to repair homes and rehabilitate some of the affected residents.
I know from personal observation—my wife and I have met many of the constituents who have been affected—that behind the statistical background lies a horror story involving real human tragedies. Counselling has been needed, as well as practical support and financial help. Above all, there remains the anxiety and worry: it is feared that an area that has been flooded several times in the past few years—albeit not on the same scale—may be flooded again.
It is with that in mind that the Government, Members of Parliament, local authorities and communities must rise to the challenge in mitigating the effects of recent flooding —and, above all, doing all that is humanly possible to reduce substantially the prospect of its occurring again.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I welcome the opportunity to speak, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on his persistence in obtaining an Adjournment debate on an extremely important and, in some respects, distressing matter.
As I have the privilege of representing a West Sussex constituency, I well appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend and those whom he represents about the considerable damage and great distress caused by last month's flooding. Together with all the other West Sussex Members of Parliament, we went to county hall in Chichester for an update last Friday; we found that extremely useful.
Hon. Members will be well aware that, after a wetter-than-average autumn, southern England suffered its heaviest sustained rainfall for many years in December and January. Many river catchments were fully saturated early in the winter. Once catchments are saturated, any additional rainfall cannot be soaked up, but flows into the ditches and rivers much more quickly and in far greater volume.
Under conditions of prolonged or heavy rainfall, those flows can increase to the point where the carrying capacity of the watercourses is quickly exceeded, which can lead to widespread flooding. In both East and West Sussex, the situation is further complicated by the presence of extensive areas of chalk downland. The unfortunate combination of the widespread appearance of springs fed from the chalk aquifer, together with the surface run-off from saturated catchments, has caused many of the flooding problems experienced in West Sussex.
On 30 December 1993, an intense rainstorms of about four hours' duration crossed the south of England from west to east. That storm produced an average of about three quarters of an inch of rain across the region as a whole, but the Sussex area suffered the highest recorded rainfall intensity of about 1·5 in on average, while the gauge near Chichester recorded 2 in. Farmland was seriously affected by flooding in many parts of southern England. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sought and obtained an exemption from set-aside rules for flooded land from the European Commission, allowing farmers to harvest their 1993 sugar beet and potato crop from set-aside land after the deadline of 15 January 1994.
On Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who is in his place, met members of the Chichester and North Sussex group of the National Farmers Union in his constituency. He has written to my right hon. Friend outlining some of their concerns. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel that those points will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend and we shall reply in detail to him and them later when we have all the information to hand.
My hon. Friend spoke eloquently and, at the end of his speech, genuinely movingly about the serious effect of the flooding on the homes of some of his constituents.

Mr. Stephen: I entirely associate myself with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) has said. In addition to the villages that he has mentioned, may I add Sompting in my constituency?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware, as he mentioned the matter on Friday in Chichester, that Sompting in his constituency was also seriously affected.
Although most of the media attention was focused on the unfortunate events in Chichester, a number of other towns and villages in West Sussex were badly affected, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and in particular Barnham, where there was flooding as early as 20 December, and more than 30 people had to be evacuated after the flooding on 30 December. My hon. Friend laid before the House in a clear and necessarily distressing manner the serious impact that that has had. Here, as in a number of Sussex villages, the speed with which flooding occurred made it difficult for timely warnings to be given.
I believe that West Sussex county council, the borough and district councils, the police, fire brigade, the Army and all the other emergency services in West Sussex, and the National Rivers Authority dealt admirably with a very difficult situation over an extended period, and that they

responded to the flooding problems in the area in a thoroughly professional and effective manner. As is well known, the county emergency planning department had to mount a complex and resource-intensive operation in Chichester, which they did with considerable distinction. Their efforts reflect great credit on their teamwork and state of preparedness, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The House will wish to congratulate all those involved in that splendid work.
Nevertheless, my hon. Friend raised a number of extremely important questions about how the situation was handled and about the need for better co-ordination among the public bodies and other organisations involved. He was good enough to give me notice of those points and, if I cannot deal with some of the other points that he made tonight, I assure him that we shall write to him with the answers that he seeks. He has rightly said that water companies, the county council, district councils and the National Rivers Authority all have responsibilities for aspects of the problem. Like him, I welcome the fact that those bodies are getting together to discuss the way ahead.
The National Rivers Authority, which exercises general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence in England and Wales, is well placed to assess the overall flood risks in the area and draw lessons from recent events. The authority has said that it intends to review its warning procedures for Barnham and the surrounding areas. I understand that it is looking at the practicality of extending the automatic alarm systems in that area, and a consultant's report is expected shortly.
In relation to the River Lavant, the National Rivers Authority has engaged consultants to investigate the causes and consequences of the recent flooding in and around Chichester. Detailed investigation of the ground-water hydrology of the chalk downs is planned, and this study is likely to lead on to an examination of possible flood alleviation measures.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes substantial sums of money available to the National Rivers Authority and to local authorities and drainage boards each year for the construction and improvement of flood and coastal defences. This assistance now amounts to over £50 million annually in England. In large part, the residual capital costs and the cost of the on-going maintenance programme for existing defences are supported by central Government through the revenue support grant given to local councils.
In many parts of the country, the extent of recent flooding was very much reduced thanks to the investment previously made in new and improved defences. I assure my hon. Friend that if, as a result of its investigations, the NRA puts to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food proposals for grant aid towards improved flood-alleviation measures in West Sussex, those will be given the most careful consideration.
My hon. Friend asked about planning agreements. At the end of 1992, the Government issued to local planning authorities revised and strengthened advice on the need, where possible, to avoid additional or new development in areas at risk of flooding. Local planning authorities receive from the National Rivers Authority specific advice on those matters, and it is clearly important that councils, in their planning decisions, give due weight to that advice. In that way, we can try to prevent new development taking place in the flood plain, being at risk of flooding at times of heavy and prolonged rainfall and sometimes creating


extra risk elsewhere. We have to recognise, however, that in some places development in the flood plain has already taken place.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend referred to the extremely serious matter of the interlinkage between the foul-water drainage system and the storm-water discharges that take place during periods of heavy rainfall. I hope that the studies that the NRA has put in train will look at all aspects of the flooding problems in the area.
The points that my hon. Friend makes about the need for co-ordination between different authorities are perfectly valid. The Ministry has sought to address this matter in the context of flood warning arrangements, through a series of meetings at national level involving the NRA, the police and the local authority associations. Those are aimed at improving the chains of communication between the various bodies involved in emergency responses to flooding and between them and the public in at-risk areas. I hope that that initiative will bear fruit later this year.
My hon. Friend rightly asked about research. Both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the NRA fund significant research and development programmes aimed at better understanding of the natural process that underlie flooding, at improved design of flood defences and at more timely and accurate flood warning. My Department alone spends £3 million annually on this area of research. Steps are taken to ensure that the results of this work are widely disseminated to practising engineers, through regular newsletters and conferences, by the Ministry's river and coastal engineers.
The detailed local arrangements for flood warning and emergency response will necessarily vary in different parts of the country, according to the nature of the threat. I am aware that in some areas local councils provide those who live in flood-risk areas with leaflets explaining which bodies are responsible for particular aspects of the local emergency arrangements. Councils and the NRA in West Sussex may wish to consider whether, in the light of recent events, there may be a need for updated guidance in their locality.
My hon. Friend then raised the question of Government assistance in meeting immediate problems caused by flooding. The distress and material loss suffered by those whose properties are flooded are very considerable and will rightly attract considerable sympathy from all parts of the House. There are a number of ways in which central Government and their agencies may give help to local communities and local councils in such circumstances.
First, local councils that have incurred exceptional expenditure in responding to a major incident such as serious flooding may approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for special financial assistance under the so-called Bellwin rules. My hon. Friend is, of course, familiar with the scheme. It is activated at the discretion of the Secretary of State in cases where the problems facing local councils have been particularly severe and would result in an undue financial burden on the local authority. Councils must contact the Department of the Environment within one month of the event, giving full supporting details. If the Secretary of

State decides to activate the scheme, about 85 per cent. of local authority costs above a threshold are usually reimbursed. I understand that Arun district council and West Sussex county council have approached the Department of the Environment under these arrangements and that their requests are being given careful consideration.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the problems faced by many small businesses affected by flooding over the new year period and asked for consideration to be given to some adjustment in the uniform business rate. This is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I am advised that, under the existing arrangements, individual businesses may be able to obtain a temporary reduction in their rateable value. Businesses should, therefore, approach the local valuation office of the Inland Revenue to see whether such a temporary reduction could be made available to them.
My hon. Friend also referred, rightly, to the possibility of humanitarian aid from the European Commission. Having heard what he had to say tonight, I have no doubt that it will make a formidable case for our energetic and excellent Member of the European Parliament, Madron Seligman, to press. I understand that the initiative in providing aid of this kind rests with the European Commission and that the Commission is assessing the situation in a number of member states, given the serious flooding that has also occurred in Germany and Holland. I gather that such aid, if provided, would be channelled via the Home Office through voluntary organisations such as the Red Cross. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns on this score are made known to the relevant Departments.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the insurance companies. In view of the points that he made, I should be happy to write to the Association of British Insurers to ask it to urge its members to respond as quickly as they can to the requests for help from those who have suffered damage and loss and to give all possible help.
We have had a useful debate on this very important subject. I again congratulate my hon. Friend on the compassionate and formidable way in which he presented his case. It is essential that whenever serious flooding occurs, investigations are held to establish the cause and to see what can be done to reduce the risk of recurrence. The local authorities, the voluntary groups, the emergency services and the NRA in West Sussex can be justly proud of their efforts. The Army deserves to be praised, too.
It is right that the NRA should press ahead with its studies into events at Barnham and Chichester. If, as a result of its investigations, the authority comes to MAFF with proposals for flood alleviation works that meet the necessary technical, economic and environmental requirements, I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department will consider them for grant aid as matter of urgency.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.